Division  B.A.G  2.  v3 

Section^Lj  .00 
No 


BAPTIST  HISTORY 
VINDICATED 


JOHN  T.  CHRISTIAN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

BAPTIHT  BOOK   CONCEEN 

Louisville,  Kentucky 

1899 


Copyright 
By  W.  p.  Harvey 

1899 


INTRODUCTION. 

Dr.  Christian  has  certainly  rendered  valu- 
ble  service  in  bringing  to  light  many  facts 
bearing  on  the  history  of  the  Engiish  Baptists 
in  the  16th  and  17th  centuries.  He  has  shown 
a  wonderful  gift  for  unearthing  facts.  As  if 
by  instinct  he  knows  which  way  to  turn  and 
where  to  go  to  get  valuable  information,  "Who 
but  he,  for  example,  would  ever  have  thought 
of  overhauling  the  wills  recorded  in  the  old 
Somerset  House,  London.  Yet  there  he  found 
the  will  of  Henry  Jacob,  probated  in  April, 
1624,  showing  that  his  death  occurred  before 
that  date.  This  fact  contradicted  the  state- 
ments of  the  Gould  documents— the  so-called 
"Kiffln"  manuscript,  the  "Jessey  Records," 
&c. 

Dr.  Christian  has  not  only  examined  the 
material  in  the  British  Museum,  and  in  the 
leading  libraries,  but  he  has  gone  into  the  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  court  records;  he  has  visited 
some  of  the  oldest  Baptist  churches,  founded 
long  before  1641,  and  has  brought  to  light  many 
interesting  and  valuable  facts.  Even  in  his 
examination  of  the  libraries  he  has  uncovered 
what  was  before  unknown.  For  example,  he 
found  the  book  of  "R.  B.",  to  which  writers  of 
the  17th  century  referred,  and  which  was 
claimed  by  those  who  hold  the  "1641  theory" 
to  have  been  written  by  Richard  Blunt.  It 
turns  out  that  "R.  B."  was  not  Richard  Blunt 
at  all,  but  "R.Barrow."  His  finding  the  testi- 
mony of  Fox,  which  had  been  disputed,  was  a 
case  of  special  interest.  But  there  is  no  need 
to  enumerate  in  detail  the  various  interesting 
"finds"  of  Dr.  Christian.  The  question  is,  what 
do  they  prove? 

The  claim  has  been  made  that  the  Anabap- 
tists of  England  were  in  the  uniform  practice 
of  pouring  and  sprinkling  for  baptism  for  near- 


ly  all  the  16th  century  and  up  to  1641  in  the 
17th.  In  1641,  it  is  said,  one  Richard  Blunt 
was  sent  over  to  Holland  to  be  immersed,  and 
returning  to  London  he  immersed  Samuel 
Blacklock,  and  these  two  immersed  others. 
This  is  claimed  as  the  first  immersion  of  a 
believer  in  England  for  more  than  a  century. 
It  is  claimed  that  about  this  time  others  began 
to  practice  immersion  without  reference  to  be- 
ing in  any  sort  of  succession,  and  without  re- 
gard to  any  baptized  administrator.  Such  is 
the  charge  against  our  Baptist  fathers  in  Eng- 
land, from  which  Dr.  Christian  has  furnished 
a  complete  vindication. 

WHAT  ARE  THE  PROOFS? 

What  is  the  evidence  brought  forward  in 
proof  of  this  charge?  One  would  suppose  that 
the  evidence  would  be  clear  and  decisive ;  that 
cases  would  be  cited  of  the  practice  of  affusion 
by  til e  Anabaptists  of  England,  and  records 
would  be  produced  of  the  change  from  sprink- 
ling to  immersion  by  the  Anabaptist  churches. 
But  we  find  nothing  of  the  sort.  Not  a  single 
instance  has  been  citedwhere  any  Anabaptist  in  Eng- 
land practiced  sprinkling  or  pouring.,  or  where  any 
Anabaptist  church  changed  its  practice.  The  re- 
markable claim  is  made  that  a  practice  was 
universal  among  a  people ,  when  not  one  of  them 
has  been  shown  to  have  observed  any  such 
practice ! ! !    What  sort  of  history  is  that? 

But  because  certain  parties  on  the  Continent 
of  Europe  are  said  to  have  practiced  aflfusion 
for  baptism,  it  is  inferred  that  these  Anabap- 
tists of  England  must  have  done  the  same. 
This  strained  inference  is  the  first  part  of  the 
alleged  evidence  that  the  immersion  of  believ- 
ers was  unknown  in  England  for  more  than  a 
century  before  1641 . 

The  second  part  of  this  evidence  is  a  state- 
ment found  in  an  anonymous  document,  the 
so-called  "Kiffln"  manuscript.    The  oldest  ex- 


111. 

tant  copy  of  this  document  dates  back  only 
BO  far  as  1860,  less  than  40  years  ago.  In  this 
copy,  now  at  Regents  Park  College,  London, 
is  an  account  of  Richard  Blunt's  going  to  Hol- 
land to  be  immersed,  of  his  return  and  of  his 
Immersing  Samuel  Blacklock,  and  of  their  im- 
mersing others.  Along  with  this  account  oc- 
cur the  words,  "none  having  then  so  practiced 
in  England  to  professed  believers."  Even  if 
it  were  conceded  tliat  this  document  were 
authentic  and  authoritative — which  I  by  no 
means  concede — all  that  could  be  claimed  as 
proved  by  it,  is  that,  so  far  o.s  tlie  toriter  knew, 
there  had  been  no  practice  of  immersing  be- 
lievers in  England  at  that  time.  But  this  is  a 
very  long  way  from  proving  that  there  was  no 
such  practice  in  England.  In  1850  Charles  H. 
Spurgeon  did  not  know  that  anybody  practiced 
immersion  in  England,  It  was  a  surprise  and 
a  joy  to  him  to  find  that  there  were  people  in 
England,  whose  existence  he  had  not  suspect- 
ed, who  observed  the  New  Testament  teaching 
in  regard  to  baptism.  He  proceeded  to  be- 
come one  of  tlT^m,  and  soon  he  filled  the  world 
with  his  fame  He  says  of  himself  in  this  re- 
gard: "I  had  ';hought  myself  to  have  been 
baptized  as  an  infant;  and  so,  when  I  was  con- 
fronted with  the  question,  'What  is  required 
of  persons  to  be  baptized?'  and  I  found  that 
repenta»ice  and  faith  were  required,  I  said  to 
myself,  'Then  I  have  not  been  baptized;  that 
infant  sprinkling  of  mine  was  a  mistake ;  and 
please  God  that  I  ever  have  repentance  and 
faith,  I  will  be  properly  baptized.'  I  did  not 
know  that  there  was  one  other  persoil  in  the 
world  who  held  the  same  opinion ;  for  so  little 
do  Baptists  make  any  show,  or  so  little  did 
they  do  so  then,  that  I  did  not  know  of  their 
existence"  (Sermon on  God's  Pupil.  Ps.  71 -17). 
If,  then,  a  certain  unknown  man's  not  know- 
ing of  the  practice  of  believer's  immersion  in 
England  in   1640,  proves   there   was   no   such 


iv. 

practice  there  at  that  time,  how  much  more 
does  Charles  H.  Spurgeon's  not  knowing  of 
the  practice  of  believer's  immersion  in  Eng- 
land in  1850,  proves  there  was  no  such  practice 
there  at  that  time.  They  had  facilities  of  in- 
formation in  1850  far  beyond  what  they  had 
in  1640. 

Thomas  Crosby,  who  wrote  a  history  of  the 
Baptists  of  England,  1738-40,  mentions  a  man- 
uscript "said  to  have  been  written  by  Mr. 
William  Kiffin,"  which  corresponds  in  many 
respects  to  the  document  in  Regent's  Park 
College,  and  no  doubt  the  latter  is  a  version  of 
the  document  Crosby  saw,  but  of  which  he 
gives  the  substance,  with  some  quotations.  It 
is  remarkable  that  Crosby  does  not  mention 
or  refer  to  the  words,  "none  having  then  so 
practiced  in  England  to  professed  believers," 
and  it  is  questionable  whether  those  words 
were  in  the  manuscript  Crosby  had  before  him. 
That  document,  however,  mentioned  the  story 
of  Richard  Blunt.  But  there  is  no  other  evi- 
dence of  the  story  except  this  sole  document, 
which  is  anonymous.  The  only  witness  in  the 
case  is  unknown,  both  as  to  his  name  and  his 
date.  We  find  no  trace  of  him  till  Crosby 
speaks  of  him  a  century  after  the  alleged  oc- 
currence. Neale  also  speaks  of  Blunt,  but 
does  so  solely  on  the  authority  of  this  same 
document.  Indeed,  outside  that  document 
there  is  no  evidence  that  there  was  such  a  per- 
formance as  Blunt's  going  to  Holland  to  be 
immersed  and  of  his  immersing  Blacklock  and 
others.  No  writer  of  the  period,  or  for  nearly 
a  century  later,  makes  any  reference  to  any 
such  proceeding.  The  book  written  by  "R. 
B."  was  supposed  to  furnish  proof  in  regard  to 
Blunt,  but,  as  has  been  said,  that  book  has 
been  found,  and  turns  out  to  have  been  writ- 
ten by  "R.  Barrow.' 

In  1643,  only  two  years  after  1641,  the  Bap- 
tist churches  of  London  put  forth  their  famous 


confession  of  faith,  which  was  signed  by  the 
leading  Baptists  of  the  city.  It  is  significant 
that  neither  the  name  of  Richard  Blunt  nor 
that  of  Samuel  Blacklock  appears.  If  they 
did  what  the  "Kiffin"  documentsays  they  did, 
their  names  should  have  headed  the  list.  Dr. 
Joseph  Angus  knows  more  aboutEnglish  Bap- 
tist history  than  any  other  living  man,  and  in 
ransacking  that  whole  period  he  finds  no  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  Richard  Blunt  or  of 
Samuel  Blacklock,  so  that  in  his  list  of  Baptist 
worthies  their  names  are  omitted.  Dr.  Cath- 
cart,  in  this  country,  in  the  Baptist  Encyclo- 
pedia gives  no  hint  of  the  existence  of  such  a 
man  as  Richard  Blunt.  The  only  evidence  of 
existence  I  have  been  able  to  hear  of  comes 
from  a  lady,  whose  name  I  am  not  at  liberty 
to  mention,  who  has  relatives  by  the  name  of 
Blunt  in  England.  She  says  that  Richard 
Blunt  was  a  Baptist,  that  he  left  the  o  out  of 
his  name  so  as  to  distinguish  himself  from  the 
Roman  Catholic  Blounts,  and  that  he  died  in 
1620.  She  gives  as  authorities  for  these  state- 
ments, Alexander  Cooke's  History  of  the 
Blunts  and  Maj.  Gen.  Blunt  of  the  British 
army.  I  have  had  no  opportunity  to  examine 
this  evidence.  If  it  shall  prove  to  be  valid, 
while  it  will  show  that  such  a  man  as  Richard 
Blunt  really  did  live,  it  will  not  help  the  1641 
theory,  since  a  man  who  died  in  1620,  cannot 
be  depended  on  to  have  introduced  immersion 
into  England  in  1641. 

But  Dr.  Christian  has  clearly  proved  that 
these  documents,  the  "Kiffin"  ms.,  "Jessey 
Records,"  &c.,  are  thoroughly  unreliable. 
They  abound  in  the  grossest  and  most  glaring 
mistakes.  They  get  names  wrong,  titles  of 
books  wrong,  and  dates  wrong.  They  repre- 
sent women  as  being  men,  men  as  operating 
long  after  they  were  dead,  or  as  actively  en- 
gaged over  the  country  when  the  court  records 
ghow  they  were  in  prison.    If  such  errors  do 


not  prove  a  document  to  be  unreliable,  in  the 
name  of  reason,  what  errors  would  prove  it? 
The  documents  were  evidently  written  long 
after  the  events,  by  parties  who  did  not  even 
dare  to  give  their  names,  and  who  were  in  gross 
ignorance  of  the  facts.  The  Ep worth -Crowle 
document  has  been  rejected  on  far  less  evi- 
dence than  is  produced  against  these  Gould 
documents — so-called  because  the  extant 
copies  were  made  in  1860,  under  the  direction 
of  the  Rev.  George  Gould.  According  to  all 
the  recognized  principles  of  evidence,  these 
Gould  documents  are  utterly  unworthy  of 
credit.  Yet  in  them  is  found  the  only  direct 
testimony  (?)  to  the  "1641  theory."  On  such 
evidence  (?)  we  are  asked  to  rest  our  liistoric 
faith. 

The  third  part  of  the  alleged  evidence,  that 
the  immersion  of  believers  was  unknown  in 
England  for  a  long  period  before  1641 ,  consists 
of  certain  expressions  of  writers  after  1641,  who 
speak  of  the  Anabaptists  as  "new,"  "upstart," 
&c.  These  expressions  are  arrayed  and  para- 
phrased so  as  to  conform  to  the  "1641  theory," 
and  interpreted  as  confirming  the  "Kiffln" 
manuscript.  Even  were  these  expressions  all 
that  is  claimed  for  them,  they  would  prove 
nothing  except  that  the  practices  of  the  Bap- 
tists were  new  to  those  who  were  writing. 
There  are  millions  of  people  in  the  United 
States  to-day  to  whom  the  practices  of  the 
Baptists  are  unknown.  It  was  not  until  after 
the  war  between  the  States  that  Gen.  Robert 
E.  Lee  knew  that  there  were  any  Christians  in 
this  country  who  rejected  infant  baptism. 
Does  that  prove  that  before  1861  the  Baptists 
of  our  land  practiced  infant  baptism?  Prof. 
George  F.  Holmes,  of  the  University  of  Vir- 
ginia, who  recently  died,  wrote :  "The  Baptists 
are  a  religious  laity  whose  main  belief  is  in 
the  necessity  of  the  Hindoo  practice  of  purifi- 
cation by  bathing"    (University  of   Virginia 


vll. 


Bulletin  for  August,  1898).  Dr,  Holmes  was 
one  of  the  greatest  scholars  of  the  world. 
These  are  but  samples  from  men  who  surely- 
had  abundant  opportunity  to  know  about  the 
Baptists,  but  who  had  not  taken  the  trouble 
to  inform  themselves.  If,  then,  such  men, 
who  are  not  chargeable  with  hostility  to  the 
Baptists,  and  living  in  our  own  land  and  time, 
so  utterly  misunderstand  our  denominational 
beliefs  and  practices,  shall  we  be  surprised  to 
find  bitter  enemies  of  the  Baptists  in  the  17th 
century  in  England  charging  them  with  being 
"new"  and  "upstart?" 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  persecuting 
courts  of  High  Commission  and  Star  Chamber 
went  out  of  existence  August  Ist,  1641,  and 
that  then  the  Baptists,  who  had  been  obliged 
to  conceal  themselves,  came  out  of  their  hid- 
ing places  and  preached  their  doctrines  boldly 
and  broadly,  as  they  could  not  do  before.  This, 
of  course,  made  astir,  and  it  was  all  new  to 
many  of  the  people  of  that  day.  What  won- 
der, then,  that  these  Baptists  should  be  pro- 
nounced "new"  and  "upstart?"  But  it  is  gro- 
tesque to  claim  such  expressions  as  proving 
that  Baptists  began  their  practices  in  England 
at  that  time.  The  very  fact  that  they  showed 
themselves  so  vigorously  and  preached  their 
doctrmes  so  boldly  in  1641,  as  is  conceded  on  all 
hands,  just  so  soon  as  they  could  do  so  safely, 
proves  that  they  did  not  then  invent  or  adopt 
these  practices.  They  came  from  their  hiding 
places  and  advocated  openly  what  they  had 
been  believing  and  practicing  in  secret  all  the 
time. 

Now,  so  far,  I  have  assumed  that  the  ex- 
pressions "new,"  "upstart,"  &c.,in  the  writings 
of  the  17th  century  meant  all  that  is  claimed 
for  them,  viz.:  that  the  writers  thought  the 
people  and  the  practices  mentioned  were 
"new"  and  "upstart."  But  an  examination  of 
the  writmgs  shows  this  not  to  be  true.    What 


vill 

these  writers  denounce  as  "new"  and  "up- 
start," is  not  the  practice  of  immersion.  Not 
at  all;  for  that  was,  up  to  the  decree  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly  in  1643,  regarded  as  the 
normal  form  of  baptism.  The  "new"  thing 
was  the  absolute  refusal  to  admit  that  any- 
thing but  immersion  wa'a  valid  baptism.  These 
writers  were  used  to  the  idea  that  while  im- 
mersion was  all  right,  affusion,  especially  in 
cases  of  sickness,  was  equally  valid.  It  was 
the  denial  of  the  validity  of  affusion  that  gave 
offense,  and  which  was  denounced  as  "new" 
and  "upstart."  Those  who  had  been  sprinkled 
in  infancy  were  now  required  to  be  immersed, 
and  nothing  but  immersion  would  be  accepted 
by  these  horrid  Anabaptists.  Dr.  Featley  in 
1644  entered  the  lists  against  these  "new  up- 
start sectaries,"  and  in  his  "Dippers  Dipt  or 
the  Anabaptists  Ducked  and  Plunged,"  &c., 
he  served  them  up  to  the  great  satisfaction  of 
their  enemies.  Dr.  Featley  clearly  states  the 
case  when  he  says,  p.  182:  "Whatsoever  is 
here  alleged  for  dipping  we  approve  of,  so 
farre  as  it  excludeth  not  the  other  two,"  that 
is,  "washing"  and  "sprinkling."  Dr.  Featley 
made  no  objection  to  the  practice  of  immer- 
sion, but  only  to  the  rejection  of  affusion.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  others  who  denounce  the 
Baptists  of  that  day  as  "new,"  "upstart,"  &c. 

Great  reliance  has  been  placed  on  a  state- 
ment of  the  anonymous  writer,  Mercurius  Rus- 
ticus,  and  so  it  may  be  well  in  passing  to  quote 
his  language  in  full,  which  those  who  throw 
him  at  us  have  carefully  avoided  doing.  On 
pages  21  and  22,  of  "Mercurius  Rusticus  or  the 
Countrie's  Complaint  of  the  Barbarous  Out- 
rages," &c.,  A.  D.  1646,  we  find: 

"Essex  is  a  deep  country,  and  therefore  we 
have  travelled  almost  two  weeks  in  it,  yet  we 
cannot  get  out;  we  are  now  at  Ghelmerford 
which  is  the  Shire  towne,  and  hath  in  it  two 
thousand  communicants ;    all  of   one  and  the 


same  church,  for  there  is  but  one  church  in 
this  great  towne,  whereof  at  this  time  Dr. 
Michelson  is  parson,  an  able  and  godly  inaii. 
Before  this  parliament  was  called,  of  this  nu- 
merous congregation,  there  was  not  one  to  be 
named,  man  or  woman,  who  boggled  at  the 
Common  prayers,  or  refused  to  receive  the 
sacrament  kneeling,  the  posture  which  the 
church  of  England  (walking  in  the  foot-steps 
of  venerable  antiquity)  bath  by  Act  ot  Parlia- 
ment injoined  all  of  those  which  account  it 
their  happinesse  to  be  called  her  children. 
But  since  this  magnified  Reformation  was  set 
this  towne  (as  indeed  most  corporations,  as  we 
flnde  by  experience,  are  Nurceries  of  Faction 
and  Rebellion)  is  so  filled  with  Sectaries,  es- 
pecially JBrownists  and  Anabo.ptists.,  that  a  third 
part  of  the  people  refuse  to  communicate  in 
the  Church  Lyturgie,and  half  refuse  to  receive 
the  blessed  sacrament,  unless  they  may  receive 
it  in  what  posture  they  may  please  to  take  it. 
They  have  amongst  them  two  sorts  of  Anabap- 
tists: the  one  they  call  Old  men,  or  Aspersi,  be- 
cause they  have  been  but  sprinkled ;  the  other 
they  call  the  New  men,  or  the  Immersi,  because 
they  were  overwhelmed  in  their  rebaptiza- 
tion." 

It  is  to  be  noted  1.  that  this  comes  from  an 
anonymous  and  a  bitter  royalist.  The  chief 
reliance  of  the  advocates  of  the  "1641  theory" 
is  on  anonymous  documents.  2.  He  constant- 
ly confounded  Anabaptists  with  Brownists  and 
others,  and  denounced  them  all  indiscrim- 
inately. Yet  even  here  he  does  not  claim  that 
any  who  had  been  sprinkled  in  infancy  were 
resprinkled,  which  must  have  been  the  case 
had  the  Anabaptists  practiced  sprinkling.  The 
reasonable  conclusion,  even  if  this  unknown 
writer  be  regarded  as  reliable,  is  that  those 
who  were  converted  from  the  state  church  and 
were  immersed  were  the  "Immersi,"  .while 
those  who  broke  from  the  state  church  without 


being  immersed  were  the"  Aspersi."  But  such 
a  venomous  -writer  was  not  apt  to  get  things 
straight,  and  his  utterance  gives  only  his  opin- 
ion at  best.  Yet  even  he  says  nothing  of 
Blunt's  introducing  immersion  in  1641  or  at 
any  other  time. 

Another  writer  greatly  relied  on  is  Robert 
Baillie,  and  it  may  be  deemed  worth  while  to 
consider  what  he  says.  He  was  a  Scotch  Pres- 
byterian minister  in  Glasgow,  and  of  course  he 
knew  all  about  what  the  Anabaptists  all  over 
England  were  doing.  He  says  in  his  "Ana- 
baptisme,"  p.  163: 

"Among  the  new  inventions  of  the  late  Ana- 
baptists, there  is  none  which  with  greater  ani- 
mosity they  set  on  foot,  than  the  necessity  of 
dipping  over  head  and  ears,  than  the  nullity 
of  affusion  and  sprinkling  in  the  administra- 
tion of  Baptisme.  Among  the  old  Anabap- 
tists, or  those  over  sea  to  this  day,  so  far  as  I 
can  learn  by  their  writs  or  any  relation  that 
has  come  to  my  ears,  the  question  of  dipping 
and  sprinkling  came  never  upon  the  Table. 
As  I  take  it,  they  dip  none,  but  all  whom  they 
baptize  they  sprinkle  in  the  same  manner  as 
is  our  custom.  The  question  about  the  neces- 
sity of  dipping  seems  to  be  taken  up  onely  the 
other  year  by  the  Anabaptists  in  England,  as 
a  point  which  alone,  as  they  conceive,  is  able 
to  carry  their  desire  of  exterminating  infant- 
baptisme,"  &c. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  his  special  objection  is 
not  to  the  practice  of  immersion  but  to  the  ad- 
vocacy of  "the  nullity  of  affusion  and  sprink- 
ling." But  how  much  Baillie  knew  of  the  peo- 
ple he  was  writing  about,  may  be  seen  by  read- 
ing further  what  he  has  to  say  of  them.  He 
tells  of  the  origin  of  these  Anabaptists,  "un- 
happy men.  Stock  and  Muncer.  did  begin  to 
breathe  out  a  pestiferous  vapour,  for  to  over- 
cloud that  golden  candlestick"  (p.  3).  He  says 
further:  "The  spirit  of  Mahomet  was  not  more 


hellish  in  setting  foot  most  grosse  errors  and 
countenancing  abominable  lusts,  nor  was  it 
anything  so  much  hellish  in  making  an  open 
trade  of  bloodshed,  robbery,  confusion  and 
Catholick  oppression  through  the  whole  earth 
as  the  spirit  of  Anabaptisme.  This  great  and 
severe  sentence  will  be  made  good  in  the  fol- 
lowing narrative  by  such  abundance  of  satis- 
factory testimonies  as  may  convince  the  great- 
est favourers  of  these  men  among  us"  (p.  3). 
He  says  of  these  Anabaptists  "that  whosoever 
refused  to  enter  into  their  society  to  be  rebap- 
tized  and  to  become  members  of  their  church- 
es were  without  all  pity  to  be  killed"  (p.  5). 
He  goes  yet  farther:  "So  great  is  the  despight 
of  divers  Anabaptists  at  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ  that  they  rail  most  abominably  against 
His  holy  name,  they  not  only  spoil  Him  of  His 
godhead,  but  will  have  His  manhood  defiled 
with  sin,  yea,  they  come  to  renounce  Him  and 
His  Cross,  though  some  of  them,  with  a  great 
deal  of  confidence,  avow  themselves  to  be  the 
very  Christ"  (p.  98). 

Once  more  he  says  that  among  these  Ana- 
baptists "the  Scripture  is  denied  to  be  the 
Word  of  God,  and  is  avowed  to  be  full  of  lies 
and  errors,  men  are  sent  from  the  Word  to 
seek  revelations  above  and  contrary  to  it' 
(p.  99). 

In  all  fairness  let  it  be  asked  what  reliance 
can  be  placed  in  the  statements  about  the  Ana- 
baptists of  a  man  who  writes  this  way  about 
them?  Yet  these  are  probably  the  main  cita- 
tions relied  upon  to  confirm  the  statement  of 
the  so-called  "Kiffin"  manuscript.  It  is  only 
fair,  though  painful,  to  add,  that  many  of  the 
authors  cited  in  favor  of  the  "1641  theory"  have 
been  grossly  misrepresented.  For  example, 
Ephraim  Pagitt  is  represented  as  saying  in  his 
Heresiography  that  the  "plunged  Anabap- 
tists" are  the  newest  sort.  He  wrote  in  l&fe, 
and  this  is  urged  as  confirming  the  theory  that 


xli. 

immersion  had  then  been  lately  introduced. 
But  the  fact  is,  Pagitt  says  no  such  thing.  I 
secured  a  copy  of  his  book  and  read  it  through 
carefully  twice  vand  others  have  read  it) ,  and 
the  expression  "plunged  Anabaptists"  does 
not  occur  in  the  book  at  all ,  and  he  draws  no 
distinction  whatever  between  the  '-plunged 
Anabaptists'  and  any  other  sort,  nor  does  he 
intimate  that  immersion  was  new  among  them. 

It  is  claimed  that  Thomas  Crosby,  the  Bap- 
tist historian  who  wrote  in  1738-40,  favored  the 
theory  that  immersion  had  ceased  to  be  prac- 
ticed in  England,  and  was  started  afresh  in 
1641.  But  the  claim  is  without  valid  warrant. 
Crosby  does  unhesitatingly  speak  of  restoring 
immersion,  but  that  he  does  not  mean  to  con- 
vey the  idea  that  immersion  had  ceased  to  be 
practiced,  is  manifest  by  his  point  blank  dec- 
larations to  the  contrary.  A  practice  can  be 
restored  without  having  entirely  ceased  to  ex- 
ist. When  the  abolition  of  the  persecuting 
courts  (High  Commission  and  Star  Chamber) 
in  1641,  left  Baptists  free  to  publicly  preach 
their  doctrines  and  observe  their  practices, 
there  was,  as  a  matter  of  course,  a  revival  of 
both.  There  was  a  decided  Baptist  move- 
ment, largely  among  Pedobaptists,  and  the 
mistake  is  made  of  thinking  that  these  Pedo- 
baptists who  adopted  Baptist  viewi*  were  the 
first  in  England,  for  over  a  century,  to  hold 
those  views.  Crosby,  however,  does  not  put 
the  revival  or  restoring  of  immersion  in  1641, 
but  back  at  the  beginning  of  the  century,  for 
he  speaks  of  John  Smyth  as  one  of  those  who 
restored  the  ordinance  in  England,  and  Smyth 
died  in  1609  or  1610.  Crosby  believed  that  the 
immersion  of  believers  had  been  practiced  in 
England  from  the  earliest  times,  and  that  it 
had  been  kept  up  in  the  world  since  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist.    Hear  him : 

"The  English  Baptists  adhere  closely  to  this 
principle,  that  John  the  Baptist  was  by  divine 


command,  the  first  commissioned  to  preach 
the  Gospel  and  baptize  by  immersion  those  that 
received  it,  and  that  this  practice  has  been 
ever  since  maintained  and  continued  in  the 
world  to  this  present  day"  (Preface,  Vol.  H. 
page  ii.) 

Crosby  gives  a  sketch  of  the  preservation  of 
immersion  from  the  days  of  Christ  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  17th  century.  He  nowhere  in- 
timates that  any  Anabaptist  church  in  Eng- 
land ever  changed  their  practice  from  sprink- 
ling to  immersion.  He  assumes  throughout 
that  the  Anabaptists  from  whom  the  Baptists 
largely  sprang,  had  all  along  practiced  immer- 
sion. He  is  at  pains  to  point  out  how  the  An- 
abaptists in  continental  Europe  practiced  im- 
mersion from  the  beginning  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. He  tells  of  the  decree  at  Zurich  in  the 
year  1530,  "making  it  death  for  any  to  baptize 
by  immersion ;  upon  which  law  some  called 
Anabaptists  were  ty'd  back  to  back,  and 
thrown  into  the  sea,  others  were  burned  alive, 
and  many  starved  to  deatli  in  prison."  He  re- 
minds his  readers  how  Pomeranius,a  compan- 
ion of  Luther,  explained  that  "plunging  was 
restored  in  Hamburg"  in  1529.  Speaking  of 
Arnoldus  Meshovius  and  others  about  1522,  as 
opposed  to  infant  baptism,  Crosby  says  (Vol. 
I.,  p.  21,  Preface):  " 'Tis  still  more  evident 
that  these  first  reformers  looked  upon  sprink- 
ling as  a  corruption  of  baptism."  This  histori- 
an believed  that  immersion  had  been  continu- 
ously practiced  in  England  since  the  time  "the 
Gospel  was  preached  in  Great  Britain  soon 
after  our  Saviour's  death"  (Vol.  II.,  p.  ix). 
He  says  (Id.  p.  xlvi.),  in  speaking  of  Wick- 
liffe's  opinions :  "i  shall  now  only  further  ob- 
serve that  the  practice  of  immersion  or  dipping 
in  baptism.,  continued  in  the  church  until  the 
reign  of  King  James  I,  or  about  the  year  1600." 
By  "the  church"  he  evidently  means  the 
Church  of  England,  for  on  the  very  next  page 


xiv. 

he  says:    ''That  immersion   continued  in  the 
Church  of  England  till  about  the  year  1600." 

HOW   SPRINKLING    GAME. 

The  reign  of  James  I.  was  tlie  turning  point, 
so  far  as  the  Church  of  England  was  con- 
cerned. James  came  from  Scotland,  where 
the  Protestant  divines  on  returning  from  their 
stay  in  Geneva,  when  Elizabeth  ascending  the 
throne  made  their  return  safe,  had  established 
sprinkling.  Hence  James  began  to  introduce 
sprinkling-  and  to  root  out  immersion  from  the 
Church  of  England. 

These  Protestant  divines  had  fled  from  the 
persecution  of  Bloody  Mary,  and  had  gone  to 
Geneva.  There,  under  the  tuition  of  John 
Calvin,  they  adopted  sprinkling  as  the  normal 
act  for  baptism ;  and  when  on  the  accession  of 
Elizabeth  they  returned  (as  the  Edinburgh 
Encyclopedia  tells  us),  they  thought  they 
could  not  do  their  church  a  greater  service 
than  by  introducing  a  practice  suited  to  their 
Northern  clime  and  sanctioned  by  the  great 
name  of  Calvin.  Thus  sprinkling  was  estab- 
lished in  Scotland,  and  James,  coming  from 
Scotland,  believed  in  sprinkling  and  sought  to 
make  it  tlie  general  practice.  And  just  here 
Dr.  Christian  has  rendered  valuable  service  in 
enabling  us  to  trace  the  growth  of  sprinkling 
in  England.  He  has  personally  examined 
copies  of  the  Articles  of  Visitation  sent  out  to 
the  clergy  by  the  Archbishops,  every  year 
from  the  beginning  of  James'  reign  to  the  tri- 
umph of  sprinkling  in  1643.  The  high  func- 
tionaries of  the  Church  of  England  resisted  the 
efforts  of  the  Court  to  substitute  the  "bason" 
for  sprinkling,  instead  of  the  "font"  for  im- 
mersion. In  these  Articles  exhortations 
abound  to  keep  the  "font"  in  its  place  and  to 
keep  out  the  "bason."  Thus  the  struggle  went 
on  until  when  the  Westminster  Assembly  met 
the    Presbyterian    view  prevailed,   and    that 


body  in  1643  voted  immersion  down  by  a  ma- 
jority of  one. 

So  far  from  immersion's  beginning  in  Eng- 
land in  1641 ,  it  was  not  far  from  that  time 
that  sprinkling  began.  And  the  very  fact  that 
immersion  was  voted  down  in  this  Assembly 
by  a  majority  of  only  one  in  1643,  is  positive 
proof  that  immersion  did  not  begin  in  Eng- 
land only  two  years  before.  It  is  incredible 
that  a  religious  rite,  introduced  anew  by  poor 
and  obscure  people,  and  opposed  to  the  prac- 
tice and  prejudice  of  those  in  power  (as  im- 
mersion must  have  been,  according  to  the 
"1641  theory"),  sliould  in  two  years  have  taken 
such  hold  of  the  members  of  that  Assembly  as 
that  the  rite  could  be  voted  down  by  only  one 
majority.  Yet  without  an  atom  of  positive 
evidence,  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  just 
that  took  place. 

ABSENCE   OF   REOOKDS 

During  the  times  of  persecution  before  1641 
(the  year  the  persecuting  courts  were  abol- 
ished), the  Baptists  could  not  safely  keep  rec- 
ords. To  have  done  so  would  have  been  to 
furnish  their  enemies  with  facilities  for  ident- 
ifying them  and  imprisoning  and  killing  them. 
The  persecutors  sought  for  records  that  they 
might  learn  the  names  and  locations  of  these 
'•pestilent  heretics;"  and  the  existence  of  rec- 
ords would  have  been  a  constant  peril.  The 
Baptists  were  too  wise  to  furnish  their  adver- 
saries with  such  easy  means  of  identification. 
Necessarily,  therefore,  the  evidence  of  the  ex- 
istence and  practices  of  the  Baptists  of  those 
times,  consists  of  what  the  court  records  tell 
us,of  what  writers  chose  to  say  of  them,  and 
of  occasional  utterances  of  the  persecuted  ones 
themselves,  when  they  could  safely  write.  It 
could  not  be  expected  that  their  enemies 
would  do  them  justice.  In  certain  obscure 
places,  where   they  could   safely  meet,  they 


xvl. 

might  venture  to  build  a  house  for  worship. 
Such  a  house  is  found  at  Hill  Cliff,  where  there 
is  now  a  Baptist  church  whicli  traces  its  ex- 
istence back  to  1622;  audit  is  believed  there 
has  been  a  church  there  since  the  earliest 
times.  Dr.  Christian  saw  there  a  tombstone, 
lately  exhumed,  with  the  epitaph  of  a  pastor 
of  that  very  church,  and  bearing  date  1357. 
The  ruins  of  an  old  baptistery  have  also  been 
lately  uncovered.  This  obscure  and  inacces- 
sible place  was  a  safe  retreat  in  times  of  perse- 
cution. How  many  such  there  were  in  the 
land,  there  are  no  means  of  determining. 

There  are  to-day  27  Baptist  churches  in  Eng- 
land which  antedate  1641.  No  one  denies  that 
these  churches  have  been  in  existence  during 
the  time  they  claim;  but  it  is  coolly  assumed, 
in  the  absence  of  any  evidence,  that  prior  to 
1641  these  churches  practiced  sprinkling.  The 
reason  for  assuming  this  is  that  the  exigencies 
of  the  "-1641  theory"  demand  it. 

From  1641  on,  the  material  is  abundant,  just 
as  we  would  expect.  And  if  the  Anabaptist 
churches  of  England  did  really  change  their 
practice  in  1641  from  sprinkling  to  immersion, 
there  is  no  reason  there  should  not  be  records 
of  such  a  change.  From  1641  on,  it  was  safe  to 
keep  records,  save  during  a  brief  space,  when 
persecution  was  renewed  to  some  extent  after 
the  restoration  of  Charles  II.  So  while  we  see 
abundant  reason  for  the  absence  of  records  be- 
fore 1641,  we  can  see  no  reason  why  there 
should  be  no  record  at  all  of  any  of  the  Ana- 
baptist churches  adopting  immersion  in  1641 
and  after,  if  they  did  adopt  it. 

POSITIVE  EVIDENCE. 

Stili  we  are  not  without  i^ositive  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  believer's  iiiimersion  in  Eng- 
land before  1641.  Dr.  Christian  gives  a  good 
supply  of  such  evidence,  much  of  which  is  new 
to  the  public.     We  note  a  very  few  of  these. 


xvll. 

The  quotation  from  John  Fox  (Book  of  Mar- 
tyrs, Alden  Ed.)  had  been  called  in  question. 
It  was  admitted  that  it  was  decisive,  if  genuine; 
but  its  genuineness  was  denied,  and  so  Dr. 
Christian  omitted  it  in  the  second  edition  of 
"Did  They  Dip?"  because  he  could  not  verify, 
the  passage  in  the  old  editions  of  Fox'  "Acts 
and  Monuments."  But  when  in  England  last 
summer  he  found  the  book  of  Fox,  whence 
that  quotation,  changed  somewhat,  was  no 
doubt  originally  derived.  The  title  of  the  book 
is  Beformuiio  Legum  Ucclesiastuai-um,  &G.,  A.  D. 
1571.  In  this  book  Fox  says  (in  Latin  which  is 
given  in  full  by  Dr.  Christian) :  "But  while  we 
are  plunged  into  the  waters  and  rise  again  out 
of  them,  the  death  of  Christ  first,  and  his  bur- 
ial is  symbolized,  and  next  his  resuscitation, 
indeed,  and  his  return  to  life,  &c." 

This  language  does  not  tell  of  an  ancient  cus  - 
torn,  long  disused,  but  of  a  present  practice 
which  the  writer  and  his  readers  observed — 
"while  we  are  plunged  into  the  waters,"  &c. 
Moreover,  Fox  speaks  of  the  Anabaptists  of 
his  day  in  a  way  which  clearly  shows  that  they 
practiced  immersion.  The  quotation  is  given 
in  full  in  the  body  of  the  book,  and  need  not 
be  repeated  here. 

Coming  on  down,  we  are  furnished  with  nu- 
merous testimonies  (Jewell,  1609;  Busher,1614; 
Hieron,  1614;  Rogers,  1633,  and  others),  both  as 
to  the  practice  of  immersion  in  general,  and  as 
to  its  practice  by  the  Baptists  particularly,  un- 
til we  come  to  Edward  Barber,  who  in  1641  was 
answering  objections  to  the  immersion  of  be- 
lievers; which  proves  the  practice  to  have  ex- 
isted before.  Barber  in  this  same  "treatise," 
declares  that  the  practice  of  immersing  believ- 
ers was  older  than  the  name  Anabaptist,  which 
name  no  one  denies  was  current  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.,  over  a  hundred  years  before. 
Barber  says  (p.  7) : 
"In  like  manner  lately,  those  that  prof  esse 
1 


xvlli. 

and  practice  the  dipping  of  Christ,  instituted 
in  the  Gospel,  are  called  aud  reproached  with 
the  name  of  Anabaptists,"  &c.  The  I'de  thing 
is  the  name  Anabaptist,  which  was  applied  as 
a  reproach  to  those  who  all  along  had  been 
professing  and  practicing  ''the  dipping  of 
Christ."  Tills  does  not  i>rove  that  the  prac- 
tice was  really  older  than  the  name,  but  that 
Edward  Barber  believed  it  to  be  so.  That  he 
wrote  tills  in  1641,  proves  that  the  practice  of 
immersing  believers  did  not  begin  at  that  time 
in  England,  since  it  ran  back  beyond  liis  rec- 
ollection, certainly.  Had  immersion  been  a 
"splinter  new"  thing  in  1641,  he  could  not  then 
have  believed  that  it  was  older  than  the  name 
Anabaptist. 

Similarly,  the  account  given  by  John  Taylor 
in  1641  of  the  immersion  of  Sam  Eaton,  by 
John  Spilsbury,  shows  the  practice  of  immer- 
sion in  England  previous  to  1641.  For  the 
court  records  show  that  Sam  Eaton  (and  there 
can  be  no  question  about  his  being  the  same 
man)  died  Aug.  26th,  1639,  and  that  he  was 
constantly  in  prison  from  May  6th,  1636,  till  his 
death.  Hence  his  immersion  and  his  immers- 
ing others  must  have  taken  place  before  May 
5th,  1636. 

The  testimonies  of  Fuller,  Busher,  Featley 
and  others  are  given  fully  by  Dr.  Christian, 
and  need  not  be  repeated  here. 

OONOIiUSION. 

We  have,  then,  briefly,  the  following  condi- 
tions : 

1st.  It  is  admitted  that  there  were  Anabap- 
tists in  England  before  1641 ,  who  were  very 
strict  in  their  belief  and  interpretation  of  the 
Bible,  and  were  ready  to  die  for  their  faith. 
But  it  is  denied  that  any  of  them  ever  saw 
their  duty  in  the  Bible  in  regard  to  baptism 
till  1641,  and  then  they  all  saw  it  at  once  and 
began  to  practice  it. 


2nd.  It  is  admitted  tliat  these  Anabaptists 
■were  constantly  reminded  of  immersion  by  the 
rubric  of  the  state  churcli  and  by  the  writings 
of  the  commentators  and  scholars  of  the  pe- 
riod. Yet  it  is  denied  that  any  of  them  took 
the  hint  till  1641,  and  then  they  all  took  it  and 
adopted  immersion. 

3d.  There  is  no  account  of  any  Anabaptist 
church's  having-  practiced  sprinkling  and 
changing  to  immersion,  and  the  absence  of  any 
such  account  cannot  be  explained  on  the  "1641 
theory." 

4th.  The  only  direct  evidence  offered  in  fa- 
vor of  the  "1641  theory"  is  the  statement  of  an 
anonymous  document,  the  oldest  extant  copy 
of  which  is  less  than  40  years  old,  which  is  not 
confirmed  by  any  writer  of  the  period,  and 
which  has  been  proved  to  be  full  of  gross  mis- 
takes— names  wrong,  dates  wrong,  titles 
wrong  and  facts  wrong. 

5th.  The  other  evidence  offered  is  circum- 
stantial, and  is,  moreover,  not  to  the  point. 
The  other  testimonies  cited  to  prove  the  "1641 
theory"  say  nothing  about  1641 ,  but  speak  of 
these  Anabaptists  as  "new  and  upstart,"  &c.., 
which  we  would  naturally  expect  when  we  re- 
member that  in  1641  the  abolition  of  the  perse- 
cuting courts  left  them  free  to  publicly  preach 
and  practice  their  beliefs  as  they  could  not  do 
before. 

6th.  We  have  actual  documentary  and  mon- 
umental evidence  of  the  practice  of  believers" 
immersion  in  England  before  1641. 

7th.  It  is  claimed  that  "distinguished  his- 
torians" have  adopted  the  "1641  theory."  Four 
names  have  been  mentioned,  but  qualifications 
should  be  used  in  citing  these  names.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  were  easy  to  cite  scores  of 
names  of  eminent  historians  who  reject  the 
"1641  theory."  Not  a  single  man  in  England 
has  adopted  it,  so  far  as  known,  and  manv  of 
them  have  distinctly  rejected  it.     Surely  Jiis- 


torians  in  England  can  be  supposed  to  know 
the  facts  of  the  history  of  England  better  than 
those  in  other  lands.  And,  moreover,  equally 
distinguished  historians,  and  more  of  them, 
too,  in  this  country  distinctly  reject  the  theory. 
The  reader,  by  examining  the  evidence  pro- 
duced, can  judge  for  himself  whether  immer- 
ision  was  "splinter  new"  in  England  in  1641. 

T.  T.  Eaton. 


[Copyrighted.] 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  JESSEY  CHURCH 

RECORDS  AND  THE  "  KIFFIN  " 

MANUSCRIPT. 


BY  JOHN  T.  CHRISTIAN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 


In  presenting  this  subject  I  shall  be  very 
careful  to  give  the  exact  sources  of  my  infor- 
mation. I  am  particularly  indebted  to  the 
-Rev.  J.  H.  Delles,  D.D.,  and  his  admirable  as- 
^istant,  the  Rev.  W.  C.  Ulyat,  the  librarian  of 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary.  Two  very 
large  collections,  one  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism and  tlie  other  on  Puritanism,  aggregating 
some  ten  thousand  volumes,  are  to  be  found  in 
that  library,  to  say  nothing  of  the  important 
books  in  the  general  library.  Unusual  oppor- 
tunities were  granted  me  for  the  examination 
of  these  works.  Tlie  British  Museum,  London, 
and  the  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford,  are  rich  in 
works  which  treat  of  early  English  Baptists. 
The  Rev.  Joseph  Angus,  D.D.,  kindly  opened 
up  his  large  collection  of  tracts  to  my  use,  and 
through  the  courtesy  of  the  Rev.  George  P. 
Gould,  President  of  Regents  Park  College, 
where  Dr.  Angus'  library  is  located,!  was  able 
to  examine  this  important  collection.  I  am. 
also  indebted  to  President  Gould  for  an  exam- 
ination of  the  Gould  edition  of  the  ''Kiffin" 
Manuscript  and  of  the  Jessey  Church  Records. 
The  library  at  York  Minster  also  contains  some 
important  works  not  found  elsewhere.  The 
Record  Office,  London,  where  the  State  Pa- 
pers are  kept,  and  the  Somerset  House  where 


wills,  births  and  marriages  are  recorded  con- 
tain invaluable  iuformatiou.  Besides  these,  I 
am  indebted  to  a  number  of  libraries  and  in- 
dividuals for  information  which  I  can  ac- 
knowledge here  only  in  the  most  general  way. 
I  have  made  full  use  of  all  these  sources  of  in- 
formation in  addition  to  a  careful  examination 
of  the  works  I  have  gathered  in  my  own  li- 
brary during  the  last  twenty  years.  I  have  no 
theory  to  serve,  and  have  tried  to  weigh  all 
the  facts  which  have  come  before  me.  1  have 
furthermore  put  myself  to  much  trouble  to 
find  all  the  facts  in  the  case ,  and  while  not  able 
to  fully  accomplish  this  important  considera- 
tion, tlie  reader  will  find  much  important  ma- 
terial that  has  not  been  presented  before.  The 
subject  certainly  needed  investigation,  and  I 
am  glad  to  be  instrumental  in  tlirowing  any 
light  upon  it. 

Most  extraordinary  and  exaggerated  claims 
have  been  i)ut  forth  as  to  the  historic  value  of 
the  ''Kiffin"  Manuscript.  Its  history  is  no 
less  remarkable.  It  has  been  strangely  con- 
founded with  other  documents  by  naore  than 
one  author,  and  has  been  made  to  serve  a  pur- 
pose on  more  tlian  one  occasion.  It  has  been 
used  to  prove  the  most  preposterous  proposi- 
tions, when  these  contradicted  all  known  his- 
tory. It  has  been  asserted  in  the  most  posi- 
tive manner  tliat  the  manuscript  is  authentic 
and  wholly  reliable,  although  not  one  con- 
temporaneous author  mentions  tiie  document 
or  ever  refers  to  the  most  prominent  persons 
named  in  it.  The  interpretations  put  upon  its 
language  are  no  less  strained  than  the  state- 
ments found  in  its  pages.  It  has  been  the 
fruitful  source  for  visions  and  extravagant 
vagaries,  while  the  historians  who  liave  adopt- 
ed it  have  given  us  instead  of  history  confusion 
worse  confounded. 

As  if  one  sucli  manuscript  is  not  enough,  we 
have  two,  which  do  not  agree  witli  eacli  other, 


indeed  they  differ  so  widely  that  they  both 
cannot  be  the  same  document,  and  yet  they 
are  both  called  the  Kiffin  Manuscript. 

1     The  Crosby  edition.    The  historian,  Cros- 
hv  'who  wrote  his  Baptist  History  in  the  year 
1738  ff.,  quotes  a  document  which  he  declares 
was   -said"    to    have    been    written   by    Mr. 
William  Kiffln.    Where  Crosby  got  this  docu- 
ment, and  what  became   of    it,  are   questions 
which  at  this  time  no  one  can  answer.    Cros- 
bv  quoted  the  document  with  evident  caution, 
and  it  is  manifest  that  he  was  never  fully  con- 
vinced that  it  was  written  by  William  Kiffin. 
In  his  first  volume  he  appears  to  have  felt  that 
some  of  the   statements  contained  m  it  were 
worthy  to  be  recorded,  and  he  may   have  ac- 
cepted some  of  its  theories;  but  it  is  equally 
certain  that  in  the  second  volume,  upon  ma- 
turer  consideration,  he  rejected  this  document, 
at  least  he  modified  his  previous  statements. 
So  far  from  Crosby  believing  that  the  Baptists 
of  England  began  in  16il,  he  was  a  believer  m 
church  succession.    Nor  is   there  a  word  in  ail 
of    his  writings  to  indicate  that  he  believed 
that  the  Baptists  of  England  began  to  dip  in 
1641      He  nowhere  indicates  that  the  words  in 
regard  to  dipping,  ''none  having  so  practiced 
in  England  to  professed  believers,"  were  in  the 
manuscript  before  him,  which  he  would  un- 
doubtedly have  done   had  the  words  been  m 
there.    His  words  on  succession  are  plain  and 
unmistakable.    He  says:    -It  may  be  expect- 
ed, and  I  did  intend,  that  this  volume  should 
have  contained  all  I  at  first  proposed  to  the 
publick.     But  since    my   pubhcation    of    the 
'ormer   volume,  I  have  had  such    materials 
jommunicated  to  me  that  I  could  not  m  r^st- 
'ce  to  the  communicators  omit  them,  without 
incurring  the   just  censure  of  a  partial  histo- 
rian.   Besides  it  having  been   objected  to  me 
that  a  more  early  account  of  the  English  Bap- 
tists might  be  obtained :  it  gave  a  new  turn  to 


my  thoughts,  aud  put  me  upon  considering  the 
state  and  condition  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
from  tlie  first  plantation  of  tlie  Gospel  in  Eng- 
land. Now  in  this  inquiry,  so  much  has  oc- 
curred to  me  as  carries  with  it  more  than  a 
probability  that  the  first  English  Christians 
were  Baptists.  I  could  not  therefore  pass  over 
so  material  a  fact  in  their  favor ;  And  now  be- 
cause it  cannot  now  be  placed  where  it  proper- 
ly belongs,  I  have  fixed  it  by  way  of  preface  to 
this  Second  Volume." 

On  page  ii  of  this  Preface,  Crosby  says: 
"This  great  prophet  Juhn^  had  an  immediate 
commission  from  heaven,  before  he  entered 
upon  the  actual  administration  of  his  office. 
Aud  as  the  English  Baptists  adhere  closely  to 
this  principle,  that  John  the  Baptist  was  by  di- 
vine command,  the  first  commissioned  to 
preach  the  gospel,  and  baptize  by  immersion^ 
those  that  received  it;  and  that  this  practice 
has  been  ever  since  maintained  and  contin- 
ued in  the  world  to  this  present  day ;  so  it  may 
not  be  improper  to  consider  the  state  of  relig- 
ion in  this  kingdom:  it  being  agreed  on  all 
hands  that  the  plantation  of  the  gospel  here 
was  very  early,  even  in  the  Apostles'  days." 

That  this  manuscript  was  not  written  by  Kif- 
fin,  will  be  abundantly  proved  in  these  articles. 
Two  or  three  points  are  clear:  Crosby  did  not 
believe  the  manuscript  was  written  by  Kiffln ; 
he  did  believe  that  the  Baptists  began  in  Eng- 
land upon  the  first  planting  of  Christianity 
and  had  continued  there  since,  and  he  did  not 
affirm  that  dipping  was  a  new  thing  in  Eng- 
land. 

2.  The  Gould  edition.  In  1860  Rev.  George 
Gould,  D.D.,  the  father  of  President  George  P. 
Gould,  of  Regents  Park  College,  had  an  un- 
successful lawsuit  in  regard  to  certain  chapel 
property.  Mr.  Gould  maintained  a  system  of 
lax  church  order  and  open  communion.  After 
the  suit  was  lost  Mr.  Gould  presented  his  side 


of  the  question  to  the  public  in  a  volume  en- 
titled, "Open  Communion  and  the  Baptists  of 
Norwich."  In  this  book  was  a  quotation  from 
the  "KifRn  Manuscript,"  but  it  at  once  ap- 
peared that  it  was  not  the  document  quoted 
by  Crosby,  since  the  quotations  made  by  Cros- 
by and  Gould  upon  the  same  subject  did  not 
at  all  agree.  This  entire  Gould  document, 
with  three  others  from  the  same  source,  were 
printed  in  the  Western  Recorder  under 
date  of  Dec.  31, 1896. 

Recently  I  had  the  privilege  of  examining 
these  Gould  documents.  Instead  of  consisting 
of  one  or  even  four  documents,  there  are  no 
less  than  thirty  of  these  papers  numbered  con- 
secutively, besides  several  miscellaneous  pa- 
pers. These  are  copied  into  a  very  large  book 
under  the  general  title,  "Notices  of  the  Early 
Baptists."  If  printed  this  material  would 
make  quite  a  large  volume,  and  undoubtedly 
was  compiled  by  the  same  person.  From 
whence  Dr.  Gould  obtained  this  material  is  a 
profound  mystery,  and  what  became  of  the 
papers  he  copied  is  a  mystery.  Prof.  Gould 
only  remembers  that  his  father  had  these  pa- 
pers, but  beyond  this  he  knows  nothing  of  the 
documents  whatever.  The  first  page  is  in  JDr. 
Gould's  handwriting,  the  remaining  pages 
were  copied  by  an  old  usher,  or  schoolmaster,, 
who  was  in  his  employ.  This  was  in  1860,  two 
hundred  and  twenty  years  after  the  events  oc- 
curred which  are  described.  That  is  to  say, 
for  a  period  of  two  hundred  and  twenty  years 
no  one  ever  heard  tell  of  this  document,  and  it 
is  not  authenticated  by  a  single  contempor- 
aneous document.  It  will  also  be  borne  in 
mind  that  this  is  not  the  original,  neither  is  it 
a  copy  of  the  original.  At  the  very  best  it  is 
only  a  copy  of  a  copy,  but  even  that  prox- 
imity of  the  original  is  not  apparent.  We  are 
not  even  favored  with  the  name  of  the  "com- 
piler."   He  is  quite  as  indefinite  as  anything^ 


10 

connected  with  this  very  indefinite  manuscript. 
The  book  is  itself  equally  indefinite.  The  fol- 
lowing is  the  introduction  to  the  thirty  docu- 
ments: 

''A  Repository  of  Divers  Historical  Matters 
relating  to  the  English  Antipedobaptists. 
Collected  from  Original  papers  or  Faithful 
Extracts. 

Anno  1712. 

"I  began  to  make  this  Collection  in  Jan. 
1710-11." 

One  could  hardly  conceive  how  an  author 
could  hide  his  personality  more  completely. 
Who  is  "I?"  At  any  rate,  we  have  a  date 
given,  1712,  but  this  is  71  years  after  1641. 
Where  were  these  manuscripts  from  A.  D.  1641 
to  1711?  where  were  they  from  1711  to  1860?  and 
where  were  they  from  1860  to  1898?  The  sub- 
introduction  placed  before  the  so-called  "Kif- 
fln"  Manuscript  is  scarcely  more  definite.  It 
reads:  ''AnoldMss,  giveing  some  Accott  of 
those  Baptists  who  first  formed  themselves 
into  distinct  Congregations  or  Churches  in 
London,  found  among  certain  Paper  given  me 
by  Mr.  Adams." 

Who  was  the  ''me"  to  whom  these  papers 
were  given?  Who  was  Mr.  Adams?  Of  course 
if  a  man  desires  to  write  conjectural  history 
no  documents  would  serve  his  purpose  better; 
but  if  he  wishes  to  state  facts  no  documents 
could  serve  his  purpose  less. 

I  was  quite  certain  when,  on  reading  the  Gould 
Kiffin  Manuscript  in  its  present  form,  that  it 
was  not  a  seventeenth  century  document.  If 
the  work  was  copied,  as  it  is  claimed,  in  1712, 
the  copyist  did  not  follow  the  original,  but  in- 
troduced the  form  and  spelling  of  his  own 
time.  That  these  compilations  could  not  have 
been  made  before  the  date  indicated,  is  abso- 
lutely certain,  from  the  fact  that  late  books 
like  Wall  on  Infant    Baptism,    and    Stripes' 


11 

Memorials  are  quoted,  which  would  stamp  the 
entire  work  as  of  late  date. 

We  have  also  another  absolute  proof  that 
the  Kiffin  Manucript  is  not  authentic.  The 
author  writes  an  article  of  his  own,  Number 
17,  which  he  inserts  in  the  work.  That  por- 
trays fully  the  form  and  style  of  his  writing, 
and  the  so-called  KiflQn  Manuscript  and  Jessey 
Records  are  in  exactly  that  style  in  con- 
struction of  sentences,  in  spelling  and  in 
all  the  peculiarities  of  language.  Whatever 
may  have  been  the  basis  for  these  various  doc- 
uments, one  thing  is  certain:  in  their  present 
form  these  thirty  articles  are  all  from  one 
man,  and  that  man  did  not  live  anywhere  near 
1641.  It  is  also  a  fact  that  the  documents  havo 
been  so  changed  in  this  compilation  that  no 
dependence  can  be  put  upon  them. 

When  the  author  of  these  articles  professed 
to  quote  literally  he  did  not  quote  correctly. 
A  striking  example  of  this  will  be  presented 
later, and  it  could  be  illustrated  at  great  length. 
I  shall  put  in  parallel  columns  the  original  ex- 
tract from  Hutchinson  and  this  collator's 
quotation  from  Hutchinson.  Two  things  will 
be  apparent:  the  first  is  that  the  collator  does 
not  follow  the  form  of  the  original,  though  this 
is  one  of  the  instances  where  he  attempted  to 
literally  present  the  very  words  of  his  author. 
It  will  be  seen  also  that  the  form  of  spelling 
and  the  peculiarities  of  style  of  the  collator 
are  the  form  of  spelling  and  the  peculiarities 
of  style  of  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  and  of  the 
Jessey  Records.  But  before  I  present  the  par- 
allel columns,  I  desire  to  present  two  short 
paragraphs  with  which  tlie  author  introduces 
his  quotation  from  Hutchinson.  He  says: 
"Mr.  Hutchinson  Account  of  ye  Revival  of 
Antipaedobaptism  towards  ye  latter  end  of  ye 
Reign  of  King  Charles  ye  First. 

Mr.  Edward  Hutchinson,  a  learned  &  In- 
genious defender  of  ye  Practice  of  Baptizing 
Believers  only,  in  his  Epistle  Dedicatory  to 
those  of  ye  Baptized  Congregations,  put  at  ye 


12 

beginning  of  his  Treatise  concerning  ye  C  ive- 
nant  &  baptism,  gives  ye  following  account  of 
ye  beginning  &  increase  of  ye  People  in  these 
latter  times." 

There  is  no  doubt  these  two  paragraphs  are 
from  the  collator,  and  yet  any  person  who  is 
at  all  familiar  with  the  Jessey  Records  and 
the  ''Kiffin"  Manuscript  as  given  by  Gould 
would  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  the  style  of 
this  author  and  of  those  documents  is  i^recisely 
the  same  That  is  true  m  reference  to  the  use 
of  the  ''&,"  the  "ye,"  "Mr.",  which  is  very  un- 
common in  1641,  the  use  of  the  capitals,  and 
indeed  in  every  particular.  The  peculiar  doc- 
trines and  words  of  the  Kiiiin  Manuscript  and 
Jessey  Records  are  all  held  by  this  collator,  or 
perhajps  I  might  more  properly  say  that  this 
collator  put  into  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  and  the 
Jessey  Records  all  of  his  peculiar  views.  The 
collator  and  these  documents  held  precisely 
the  same  views,  expressed  in  the  same  style  of 
language,  and  spelled  in  the  same  way.  The 
word  "Antipsedobaptism,"  in  this  quotation 
corresponds  with  "Antipsedobaptisf  in  docu- 
ment number  4  where  this  statement  occurs : 
"An  account  of  divers  Conferances,  held  in  ye 
Congregation  of  wch  Mr.  Henry  Jessey  was 
Pastor,  about  Infant  bajjtism  by  wch  Mr.  H. 
Jessey  &  ye  greatest  part  of  that  Congregation 
were  proselited  to  ye  Opinion  and  Practice  of 
ye  Antipsedobaptists." 

It  is  manifest  that  this  term  was  familiar  to 
this  collator,  and  it  is  quite  certain  that  in 
1638  (the  alleged  date)  it  was  not  in  use,  and 
therefore  it  stands  to  reason  that  it  was  read 
into  these  "genuine  records"  (?)  by  the  col- 
lator. Crosby  claims  that  the  word  "Antipse- 
dobaptist"  originated  with  Wall,  who  wrote 
his  book,  "A  History  of  Infant  Baptism," 
in  1705  (Crosby,  vol.  1,  p.  viii).  An  edit- 
orial in  the  Independent^  in  refuting  the  au- 
thority of  another  manuscript,  declares:   "It 


employs  also,  in  one  instance,  the  word  T>edo- 
baptistery,  which,  to  say  the  least,  is  quite 
suspicious  for  a  paper  claiming  to  belong  to 
the  Puritan  period.  So  far  as  our  reading  goes, 
the  Baptists  never  used  that  word  prior  to  the 
year  1660;  but  always  said  in  the  place  of  it, 
'Infants  baptism.  Childish  Baptism  or  Baby 
Baptism.'  ''—The  Independent, 3 wlj  29, 1880.  The 
earliest  use  I  have  found  of  the  word  is  in 
Bailey's  "  Anabaptism,"  but  that  is  some  vears 
later  than  1638. 

The  collator  talks  of  "the  revival"  of  "the 
practice  of  immersion,"  "of  those  of  ye  Believ- 
ers," and  in  Document  4  the  collator  says :  "An 
Account  of  ye  Methods  taken  by  ye  Baptists 
to  obtain  a  proper  Administrator  of  Baptism 
by  immersion,  when  that  practice  had  been  so 
long  disused,  yt  then  was  no  one  who  had  been 
so  baptized  to  be  found."  This  is  almost  a 
word  for  word  statement  of  the  case  as  we  find 
it  in  the  "KifRn"  Manuscript.  These  persons 
were  called  Baptists  in  the  Jessey  Church 
Records,  a  name  which  was  not  in  use  in  1641, 
and  we  all  remember  the  celebrated  words 
from  the  "KifRn"  Manuscript  which  have 
been  so  often  used  by  some  when  speaking  of 
immersion  in  England,  "none  having  so  prac- 
ticed it  in  England  to  professed  Believers." 
The  collator  must  have  added  these  words  to 
the  "Kiffln"  Manuscript.  This  opinion  is  pow- 
erfully strengthened  when  we  recollect  that 
Crosby  gives  the  passage  from  which  these 
words  occur,  but  he  never  mentioned  these 
words.  If  Crosby  intentionally  omitted  these 
words  from  the  Manuscript,  then  he  was  not 
an  honest  man,  but  no  one  has  ever  suspected 
his  honesty.  We  have  shown  that  these  are 
the  very  words  of  the  collator,  and  since  they 
are  inserted  here  and  ommitted  by  Crosby, 
this  collator  is  responsible  for  them. 

But  fortunately  we  have  point  blank  proof 
that  the  words,  "none  having  so  i^racticed  it 


in  England  to  professed  believers,,'  are  those 
of  the  compiler.  If  one  will  turn  to  Number 
18  of  this  Gould  collection,  the  words  of  this 
compiler  are  found  as  follows:  "An  account  of 
ye  Methods  taken  by  ye  Baptists  to  obtain  a 
proper  Administrator  of  Baptism  by  Immer- 
sion, when  tliat  j)ractice  had  been  so  long  dis 
used,  yt  then  was  no  one  who  had  been  so  bap- 
tized to  be  found."  There  is  absolutely  no  ex- 
cuse for  these  words  in  the  quotation  which 
follows.  This  compiler  had  a  theory  of  his  own 
and  a  set  form  of  words,  and  he  read  these 
words  into  any  narrative  that  happened  to 
suit  his  convenience.  He  put  them  in  the 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript,  It  is  thus  demonstrated 
beyond  a  doubt  that  this  compiler  has  manip- 
ulated the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  to  suit  his  own 
purposes.  Whether  this  "compiler"  wrote  in 
the  19th  or  the  18th  century  is  of  little  moment. 
He  either  wrote  a  "Kiffin"  Manuscript,  or  he 
"doctored"  a  "KiflBn"  Manuscript  to  suit  his 
purposes.  One  is  as  bad  as  the  other.  The 
fact  remains  that  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  is  a 
fraud  and  of  no  value. 

Here  are  the  parallel  columns  from  Hutchin- 
son. The  first  column  contains  Hutchinson's 
own  words  as  he  wrote  them,  the  second  con- 
tains the  collator's  quotation  fi'om  Hutchinson : 

hutohinson'9  words. 

"TF?!en  the  professors  of 
these  nations  had  been  a  lonn 
time  wearied  with  the  yohe  of 
superstitions,  ceremonies, 
traditions  of  men,  and  cor- 
rupt mixtures  in  the  wor- 
ship and  service  of  God,  it 
pleased  the  Lord  to  break 
these  yokes,  and  by  a  very 
strong  impulse  of  his  Spirit 
upon  the  hearts  of  his  people, 
to  convince  them  of  the  neces- 
sity of  Reformation.  Divers 
pious,  ana  very  gracious  peo- 
ple, having  often  sought  the 
Lord  by  fasting  and  prayer. 


THE 
OOLXrATOR'S  QUOTATION. 

When  ye  Professors  of 
these  Nations  had  been  a 
long  time  wearied  wth  ye 
Yoke  of  Superstitious  Cer- 
emonies, Traditions  of 
Men,  &  corrupt  mixtures 
in  ye  Worship  <&  Service 
of  God,  it  pleaspd  ye  Lord 
to  break  these  Yokes,  &  by 
a  very  strong  impulse  of 
his  Spirit  upon  ye  hearts 
of  his  People,  to  convince 
them  of  ye  Necessity  of 
Reformation.  Divers  Pious 
&    very    gracious     People- 


15 


thit  he  would  show  them  the 
pattern  of  hia  house,  the  go- 
inux-out  andcinuinus-in  there- 
of, tfcc.  Resolved  (bythegrace 
of  Ood),  not  to  receive  or 
practice  any  piece  of  posi- 
tive worship  which  had  not 
precept  "r  example  from 
the  word  of  God.  Infant- 
baptism  coming  of  course 
utuier  consideration,  after 
long  search  and  many  de- 
bates, it  was  found  to 
have  no  footing  in  the  Scrip- 
tures (the  only  rule  and 
standard  to  try  doctrines 
by);  hut  on  the  contrary  a 
mere  innovition,  yea,  the  pro- 
fanation of  an  ordinance  of 
Ood.  Am  i  though  it  was  pro- 
posed to  he  laid  aside,  yet 
what  fears,  tronhlings,  and 
temptdti07is  did  altoid  them, 
lest  they  should  he  mistaken, 
considering  how  many  learned 
and  godly  men  were  of  an  op- 
posite persuasion.  Howgladr 
ly  would  they  havehod  the  rest 
of  their  brethren  gone  along 
with  them.  But  when  there 
was  no  Iwpes.  they  concluded 
that  a  Christian's  faith 
must  not  stand  In  the  wis- 
dom of  men ;  and  that  ev- 
ery one  must  give  an  ac- 
count of  himself  to  God; 
and  so  resolved  to  practice  ac- 
cording  to  their  light.  The 
great  objection  was,  the  want 
of  an  administrator;  which, 
as  I  have  heard  was  remov'd 
by  sending  certain  messengeis 
to  Holland,  whence  they  were 
supplied."  (A  Treatise 
Concerning  the  Covenant 
and  Baptism  Dialogue- 
wise.  Epistle  to  the  Read- 
er.   London,  1676). 


i  havelng  often  Sought  ye 
Lord  by  fasting  and  pray  er, 
yt  he  would  show  theni  ye 
pattern  of  his  house,  ye 
goings  out  &  ye  comings 
in  thereof,  <fec.  Resolved 
(by  ye  grace  of  God)  not  to 
receive  or  practice  any 
piece  of  positive  worship 
wch  had  not  Precept  or 
Example  from  ye  word  of 
God.  Infant  Baptism  com- 
ing of  course  under  con- 
sideration long  Search  & 
many  debates  it  was  found 
to  have  no  footing  In  ye 
Sci'iptures  (ye  only  rule  & 
standard  to  try  Doctrines 
by)  but  on  ye  Contrary  a 
meer  innovation,  yea  ye 
prophanatlon  of  an  Ordi- 
nance of  God.  And  tho'  it 
was  proposed  to  be  laid 
aside,  yet  wt  fears,  trem- 
bling &  temptations  did 
attend  them  least  they 
should  be  mistaken,  con- 
sidering how  many  &  God- 
ly men  ware  of  an  opposite 
perswasion.  How  gladly 
would  they  have  had  ye 
rest  of  their  Brethren  gone 
along  wth  them.  But  when 
there  was  no  hopes,  they 
concluded  that  a  Chris- 
tian's faith  must  not  Stand 
in  ye  wisdom  of  men,  &  yt 
every  one  must  give  an  ac- 
count of  himselfe  to  God, 
&  so  resolved  to  practice 
according  to  their  light: 
The  Great  Objection  was 
ye  want  of  an  Adminis- 
trator, wch  (as  I  have 
heard)  was  removed  by 
sending  certain  to  Hol- 
land, whence  they  were 
supplyed. 


A  comparison  of  this  quotation  with  the  or- 
iginal carries  out  fully  my  contention  that  the 
collator  does  not  accurately  follow  the  original, 
and  that  the  form  of  words  and  spelling  of  the 
"Kifiin"    Manuscript    are    after   the    collator 


16 

rather  than  the  original.  In  this  passage  he 
evidently  tried  to  follow  the  original,  although 
he  met  with  indifferent  success.  But  in  the 
''Kiffin"  Manuscript  it  is  certain  that  he  has 
added  matter.  I  have  already  pointed  that 
out,  but  this  could  be  made  out  in  any  number 
of  instances.  The  four  superscriptions  to  the 
documents  are  all  of  that  class.  Take  Docu- 
ment number  one,  the  "Jessey  Church  Rec- 
ords." The  following  superscription  occurs: 
"The  Records  of  an  Antient  Congregation," 
<fec.  To  call  this  church  an  "antient  congrega- 
tion" at  that  time  was  absurd.  But  that  is  not 
only  in  the  superscription  but  it  is  in  tlie  main 
body  of  the  "Jessey  Records"  at  an  alleged 
period  when  the  church  was  not  over  16  vears 
old. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  the  thirty  ar- 
ticles which  go  to  make  up  this  book,  with  the 
miscellaneous  matter  thrown  in,  I  cannot  re- 
gard it  as  of  any  historical  value.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  an  irresponsible  collator  has  gathered 
a  lot  of  miscellaneous  material,  never  exact- 
ly following  the  original,  and  frequently  only 
giving  a  paraphrase,  and  sometimes  he  makes 
the  author  say  what  the  collator  thinks,  rather 
than  what  the  author  thinks.  But  I  have 
even  more  grave  objections  to  the  "genuine  (?) 
records"  than  these.  These  will  be  given  in 
the  next  article 

II. 

It  is  very  interesting  to  note  the  opinions  of 
the  historians  on  the  "Kiffln"  Manuscript, and 
as  to  the  Jessey  Church  Records  no  notice 
whatever  has  been  taken  of  their  existence. 
Not  one  historian  has  been  willing  to  risk  his 
reputation  by  declaring  that  the  "Kiffin" 
Manuscript  is  authentic  and  authoritative. 
There  is  not  one  line  that  any  historian  has 
been  able  to  find  concerning  the  chief  events 
or    the     principal  persons    mentioned    in    its 


17 

pages.  Whoever  heard  of  Blunt  or  Blacklock 
outside  of  these  ''Kiffln"  Manuscripts?  Neal 
and  others  who  refer  to  them  do  so  wholly  on 
the  authority  of  these  documents.  It  is  in- 
credible that  all  the  things  which  the  "Kiffin" 
Manuscript  affirm  of  Blunt  and  of  Blacklock, 
of  the  trip  to  Holland,  of  their  introduction  of 
immersion  among  Baptists,  and  the  rest  of  the 
miraculous  things  recorded  could  have  taken 
place,  and  yet  the  hundreds  of  contemporan- 
eous pamphlets  and  books  published  on  the 
subject  of  baptism  never  even  mention  or  in 
the  remotest  manner  refer  to  the  exploits  of 
either  of  these  gentlemen.  One  could  come  as 
near  believing  the  tales  of  Baron  Munchausen 
as  the  tales  of  the  "Kiffin  "Manuscript.  But  the 
use  that  the  historians  have  made  of  the  "Kif- 
fln"  Manuscript  is  a  very  interesting  one. 

The  first  was  Neal.  He  wrote  in  1732-38,  or 
97  years  after  16iL  Crosby  loaned  the  "Kif- 
fin" Manuscript,  along  with  other  documents, 
to  Neal.  Nobody  in  those  days  mentioned  a 
Manuscript  corresponding  with  the  Gould  edi- 
tion. The  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  was  so  con- 
fusing and  contradictory  that  Neal,  like  every 
one  else  who  has  tried  to  follow  this  document, 
got  mixed  in  his  facts.  The  result  was  that 
Crosby  was  disgusted  and  wrote  a  history 
himself. 

Although  Crosby  had  criticized  Neal  for  his 
blunders  in  theuse  of  the  "KiflBn"  Manuscript, 
he  was  scarcely  more  successful.  Crosby, 
however,  did  not  believe  that  the  document 
had  been  written  by  KiflBn,  for  the  very  best 
he  could  say  of  it  was :  "This  agrees  with  an 
account  of  the  matter  in  an  ancient  manu- 
script said  to  have  been  written  by  Mr.  Wm. 
Kiflan,who  lived  in  those  times"  (Crosby,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  100). 

Who  "said"  that  the  manuscript  was  written 
by  William  Kiffin,  Crosby  fails  to  state.    It  is 
quite  evident  from  the  second  volume  of  Cros- 
2 


by  that  he  does  not  believe  the  "Kiflan"  Man- 
uscript to  be  authoritative,  for  he  constantly 
maintains  positions  which  contravene  its 
statements.  Crosby  had  great  trouble  in  quot- 
ing from  his  copy  of  the  "Kiffln"  Manuscript, 
but  liis  difficulties  would  have  been  multiplied 
ten-fold  had  he  attempted  to  quote  the  Gould 
edition  of  that  document. 

We  come  now  to  some  very  interesting  state- 
ments from  one  John  Lewis.  After  Crosby 
had  published  his  history,  John  Lewis,  an 
Episcopalian,  of  Kent,  replied  to  it  in  a  little 
volume  entitled,  "A  Brief  History  of  the  Eng- 
lish Anabaptists."  After  the  publication  of 
this  book  Mr.  Lewis  appears  to  have  spent  the 
remainder  of  his  life  in  writing  books  against 
the  Baptists.  He  was  very  violent  and  veno- 
mous, but  he  gathered  a  great  many  state- 
ments concerning  the  Baptists.  Tliese  works 
were  never  published,  but  they  are  preserved 
in  many  volumes  in  manuscript  form  in  the 
Bodliean  Library,  where  I  consulted  them. 
He  utterly  repudiates  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript, 
and  makes  all  manner  of  fun  of  Crosby  for 
ijuoting  such  a  document.  After  quoting  the 
story  of  Blunt  and  Blacklock  as  given  by  Cros- 
by, taken  from  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscrij^t,  he 
says:  "This  is  a  very  blind  account.  I  can't 
find  the  least  mention  made  anywhere  else  of 
these  three  names  of  Batte,  Blount  and  Black- 
lock,  nor  is  it  said  in  what  town,  city  or  par- 
ish of  the  Netherlands  those  Anabaptists  lived 
who  practiced  this  manner  of  baptizing  by  dip- 
ping or  plunging  the  whole  body  under  water" 
(Rawlinson  Mss.  C.  409). 

Mr.  Lewis  quotes  the  comment  of  Crosby 
where  he  says,  "an  antient  Ms.  said  to  be  writ- 
ten by  Mr.  William  Kifiin,"  and  then  adds: 
"How  ignorant!"  (Rawlinson  Ms.  C.  409). 

In  another  volume  Lewis  remarks:  "But  it 
is  pretty  odd,  that  nobody  should  know  in 
what  place  this  antient  congregation  (a  congrega- 


19 

tion  much  about  the  same  antiquity  with  the 
antient  Ms.)  was  and,  that  John  Batte,  their 
teacher,  should  never  be  heard  of  before  or 
since"  (RawL  C  409).  This  sarcastic  remark 
that  a  supposed  contemporaneous  manuscript 
should  refer  to  a  church  of  the  same  date  as 
an  "antient  congregation,"  does  not  miss  its 
mark.  Of  course,  a  contemporaneous  docu- 
ment would  not  make  any  such  statement. 

Lewis  quotes  the  statement  of  Crosby — ''In 
the  year  1633  the  Baptists,  who  had  hitherto 
been  intermixed  among  the  Protestant  Dis- 
senters without  distinction,  began  now  to  sepa- 
rate themselves,  &  form  distinct  societies" — 
and  then  makes  this  comment:  "Here  seems 
to  me  to  be  two  mistakes — 1.  That  the  Anabap- 
tists till  1633  were  intermixed  among  the  pro- 
testant  dissenters  viz :  the  puritans.,  Brownists, 
Barrowists  and  Independents.  Since  they  all  dis- 
claimed them.  2.  That  the  English  Anabap- 
tists began  in  1633  to  separate  themselves.  The 
writer  of  this  ignorant  and  partial  history 
owns,"  &c.     (Rawl.  C.  409). 

Again  he  says:  "Others  say  it  was  first 
brought  here  by  one  Richard  Blount.,  but  who 
and  what  he  was  I  don't  know"  (Rawl,  C.  410). 

Once  more:  "But  we  have  no  authority  for 
this  account  but  a  manuscript  said  to  have 
been  written  by  William  KiflBn"  (Rawl.  C. 
110,5.200). 

It  ia  refreshing  to  read  the  words  of  this  his- 
torian, who  had  no  good  words  for  the  Bap- 
tists, but  the  statements  of  this  "KiflBn"  Man- 
uscript were  too  unauthentic  for  him  to  be- 
lieve. This  is  the  more  remarkable  because 
being  hostile  to  the  Baptists,  it  would  have 
suited  him  exactly  to  have  believed  the  state- 
ment of  the  Manuscript.  With  all  his  bitter- 
ness towards  the  Baptists,  he  was  too  honest  to 
use  against  them  unauthentic  documents. 

It  is,  therefore,  perfectly  clear  that  John 
Lewis  rejects  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  as  not 


-JO 

authentic.  But  he  goes  further  and  declares 
and  argues  out  an  elaborate  supposition  that  if 
this  document  is  true,  then  the  Anabaptists  of 
that  period  in  England  were  in  the  practice  of 
sprinkling,  which  he  did  not  believe.  This 
proposition  he  regarded  as  absurd.  He  further 
goes  on  to  elaborate  that  the  Dutch  Baptists 
were  in  the  practice  of  sprinkling.  Indeed, 
this  supposition  of  his  covered  the  entire  state- 
ments of  those  Baptists  of  our  day  who  hold 
the  1641  theory.  This  statement  throws  a  curi- 
ous light  upon  "the  new  discovery."  Dr.  Dex- 
ter borrowed  his  theory  from  Robert  Barclay, 
a  Quaker,  who  wrote  his  "Inner  Life"  in  1860, 
and  Barclay  borrowed  his  theory  from  John 
Lewis,  a  bitter  Episcopalian,  who  wrote  about 
1740.  The  difference,  however,  is  startling. 
Lewis  rejected  the  sprinkling  theory,  and  put 
it  forth  as  involving  his  opponent,  Thomas 
Crosby,  in  an  absurdity;  but  Barclay,  writing 
a  hundred  and  twenty  years  later,  accepted 
this  absurd  supposition  as  a  fact  and  elaborat- 
ed it  into  a  theory.  It  is  amusing  to  see  how 
these  writers  have  followed  each  other,  using 
the  same  quotations,  theories,  arguments  and 
sometimes  words,  and  how  all  of  them  have 
boasted  of  superior  learning  and  the  ignorance 
of  Baptist  historians,  and  each  one  boasted 
that  he  had  made  the  only  original  and  "new 
discovery."  The  case  stands:  Lewis  invented 
the  theory  to  overthrow  his  Baptist  opponent, 
Crosby;  Barclay  accepted  this  invention  as  a 
fact ;  Dexter  accepted  the  1641  theory  but  re- 
jected the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript,  and  the  few 
Baptists  who  have  gone  off  with  this  "in- 
vention" of  Lewis'  swallowed  the  "Kiffin" 
Manuscript  and  all. 

Evans,  the  Baptist  historian,  regards  the 
statements  in  this  Manuscript  as  vague  and 
uncertain.  He  says :  "This  statement  is  vague. 
We  have  no  date  and  cannot  tell  whether  the 
fact  refers  to  the  Separatists  under  Mr.  Spils- 


21 

bury  or  to  others"  (History  Early  English 
Baptists,  Vol.  II.,  p.  78). 

Cathcart  says  this  transaction  of  Blunt's  may 
have  happened,  but  he  further  remarks :  "We 
•would  not  bear  heavily  on  the  testimony  ad- 
duced by  these  good  men"  (Baptist  Encyclo- 
paedia, Vol.  I.,  p.  672). 

Armitage  is  pleased  to  say:  "A  feeble  but 
strained  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that 
none  of  the  English  Baptists  practiced  immer- 
sion prior  to  1641,  from  the  document  men- 
tioned by  Crosby  in  1738,  of  'which  he  remarks 
that  it  was  'said  to  be  written  by  Mr.  William 
Kiffin.'  Although  this  manuscript  is  signed 
by  fifty-three  persons,  it  is  evident  that  its 
authorship  was  only  guessed  at  from  the  begin- 
ning, it  may  or  may  not  have  been  written  by 
Kiffin"  (History  of  the  Baptists,  p.  440). 

Dr.  Henry  S.  Burrage,  who  has  given  much 
time  and  attention  to  this  subject,  after  a 
somewhat  lengthy  discussion  of  the  Jessey 
Church  Records  and  the  Gould  "Kiffin"  Manu- 
script, is  constrained  to  say:  "It  will  be  no- 
ticed that  in  our  reference  above  to  the  Jessey 
Church  Records,  we  say  'if  they  are  authen- 
tic' We  have  not  forgotten  the  'Crowle  and 
Epworth'  records.  These  made  their  appear- 
ance about  the  same  time  as  the  Jessey  Church 
Records,  and  it  is  now  known  that  they  are 
clumsy  forgeries.  The  Jessey  Church  Records 
may  be  genuine,  but  their  genuineness  has  not 
yet  been  established"  {Ziori's  Advocate,  Septem- 
ber, 1896). 

Prof.  A.  H.  Newraan,  who,  if  he  has  not  ac- 
cepted this  Manuscript  as  genuine,  has  at  least 
been  an  apologist,  confesses  that  by  following- 
this  manuscript  he  has  been  led  into  insuper- 
able difllculties.  After  making  some  obscure 
statements  about  the  Baptists  of  England,  he 
makes  the  following  remarkable  apology :  ''A 
few  remarks  seem  called  for  by  the  obscurity 
of  some  of  the  statements  quoted  above.    It 


is  not  possible  out  of  the  material  that  has 
thus  far  come  to  the  light  to  trace  in  detail  the 
evolution  of  the  seven  churches  that  signed 
the  confesson  of  1644.  The  statement  quoted 
from  the  so-called  "Kiffln"  Manuscript,  with 
reference  to  the  division  of  1640  involves  a 
number  of  difficulties.  P.  Barebone,  with 
whom  half  of  the  church  withdrew,  has  com- 
monly been  regarded  by  Baptist  writers  as  a 
Baptist.  Yet  in  1642  he  published  'A  Dis- 
course tending  to  prove  the  Baptism  in,  or  un- 
der, the  Defection  of  Antichrist  to  be  the  Or- 
dinance of  Jesus  Christ,  as  also  that  the  Bap- 
tism of  Infants  or  Children  is  Warrantable 
or  Agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,'  and  in  1643 
and  1644  he  published  other  polemical  tracts 
against  Antipedobaptism.  If  in  1641  he  was 
the  leader  of  the  Antipedobaptists  and  immer- 
sionist  half  the  divided  congregation,  he  must 
soon  after  have  abandoned  his  position.  This 
is,  of  course,  possible.  From  the  construction 
of  the  sentence  Jessey  might  be  taken  to  be 
the  leader  of  the  Baptist  half,  but  it  appears 
that  Jessey  did  not  become  a  Baptist  till  five 
years  later.  This  difficulty  seems  inexplica- 
ble without  further  material"  (A  History  of 
the  Baptist  Churches  in  the  United  States, 
pp.52,  63^. 

Dr.  Newman  is  a  very  clear  and  convincing 
writer  usually,  but  in  this  instance  he  has 
been  betrayed  into  the  use  of  material  that 
would  lead  a  man  into  all  manner  of  errors. 
We  hope  that  Dr.  Newman  will  in  the  next 
edition  of  flhis  otherwise  admirable  history 
leave  out  all  of  these  statements  which  are 
given  upon  the  authority  of  the  "Kiffln"  Man- 
uscript alone. 

The  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  was  so  bad  that  even 
Dr.  Dexter  would  not  accept  it.  Anything  that 
Dexter  would  not  have  used  against  the  Bap- 
tists must  have  been  very  unreliable,  but  the 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript,  even  in  the  Crosby  form, 


2S 

"was  too  much  for  him.  His  repudiation  of  the 
document  was  clear  and  explicit.  He  says; 
"Crosby  says  he  derived  his  information  from 
'an  antient  manuscript  said  to  be  written  by 
Mr.  William  Kiffin,  who  lived  in  those  times, 
and  was  a  leader  among  those  of  that  persua- 
sion.' Conceding  the  genuineness  of  this  man- 
uscript, and  its  value  in  testimony — both  of 
which  might  be  open  to  question — let  us  note 
its  exact  words  as  to  the  point  before  us"  (The 
True  Story  of  John  Smyth,  p.  43). 

Again :  "On  the  other  hand,  had  not  Kiffin— 
as  it  is  supposed — made  the  statement,  it 
would  be  suspicious  for  its  vagueness,  and  for 
the  fact  that  none  of  the  historians,  not  even 
Wilson,  Calamy,  Brook,  or  Neal,  know  any- 
thing about  either  Blount  or  Blacklock,  be- 
yond what  is  here  stated"  (p.  54). 

We  may,  therefore,  divide  the  historians 
into  three  classes— 1  Those  who  reject  the 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript,  and  do  not  think  it 
worthy  of  mention  at  all.  This  class  is  per- 
haps the  largest,  and  contains  many  of  the 
foremost  writers  of  these  times.  2.  Those 
writers  who  have  seen  fit  to  mention  it 
but  reject  it  as  unworthy  of  credence, 
or  call  in  question  the  statements  which 
it,  makes.  3.  Avery  small  number  of  writers 
who  attempt  to  quote  the  statements  and  rec- 
oncile them  with  known  facts.  These  writers 
generally  apologize  for  and  do  not  endorse  the 
manuscript  in  so  many  words.  I  can,  there- 
fore, make  the  claim  that  scholars,  as  far  as 
they  have  expressed  themselves  on  the  sub- 
ject, are  almost  unanimous  against  the  authen- 
ticity and  value  of  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript. 

One  of  my  principal  objections  to  the  "Kif- 
fin"Manuscriptis  thatitcontradicts  Kiffin  him- 
self. The  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  declares  that 
immersion  in  1641  was  unknown  in  England,  as 
"none  having  then  so  practiced  it  in  England 
to  professed  believers."     Now   Kiffin  in  1646 


said  in  a  document  which  is  undoubtedly  gen- 
uine: "It  is  well-known  to  many,  and  especi- 
ally to  ourselves,  that  our  congregations  as 
they  now  are,  were  erected  and  framed,  accord- 
ing to  the  rule  of  Christ  before  we  heard  of  any 
Reformation,  even  at  that  time  when  Episco- 
pacie  was  at  the  height  of  its  vanishing 
glory." 

It  has  been  contended  that  the  "Reforma- 
tion" here  mentioned  had  reference  to  tiie 
Presbyterian  Reformation  in  England.  That 
is  a  very  strained  interpretation  to  put  on  tliis 
language,  and  this  explanation  can  only  be 
prompted  by  a  desperate  desire  to  sustain  a 
sinking  cause ;  but  even  if  this  explanation 
were  true  it  would  carry  us  to  a  date  much 
earlier  than  1641.  But  fortunately  we  are  not 
left  in  doubt  as  to  what  was  meant  by  Kiffin. 
Mr.  Josiah  Richart,  who  says  he  wrote  the 
queries  to  which  Kiffin  replied,  understood 
that  KifRn  referred  to  the  Episcopal  and  not 
the  Presbyterian  Reformation.  "You  allege," 
he  says,  "your  own  practise,  that  your  congre- 
gation was  erected  and  framed  in  the  time  of 
episcopacie,  and  that  before  you  heard  of  any 
Reformation."  Ricliart  admits  that  this 
miight  be  true.  (A  Looking  Glass  for  tlie  Aua- 
baiJtists,  London,  1645,  pp.  6,  7).  Here,  then, 
is  a  Baptist  church  organized  and  framed,  im- 
mersion and  all,  "as  they  now  are,"  long  be- 
fore 1641.  This  example  is  strictly  to  the 
point,  and  settles  the  existence  of  immersion 
in  at  least  one  Baptist  church  before  1641. 

Furtlier  on  Kiffin  distinctly  makes  the  claim 
that  the  Baptists  outdated  the  Presbyterians. 
He  says:  "And  for  the  second  part  of  your 
querie  '1  hat,  ice  disturb  the  great  Worke  of  Reforma- 
tion now  in  hand;  I  know  not  wliat  you  meane 
by  this  cliarge,  iinless  it  be  to  discover  your 
prejudice  against  us  in  Reforming  ourselves 
belore  you,  lor  as  yet  we  have  not  in  our  un- 
derstanding,   neither   can    we    conceive  any- 


thing  of  that  we  shall  see  reformed  by  you  ac- 
cording to  truth,  but  that  tlirough  niercie  wee 
enjoy  the  practice  of  the  same  already;  tis 
strange  this  should  be  a  disturbance  to  the  in- 
genious faithful  Reformer ;  it  should  bee  (one 
would  think)  a  furtherance  ratlier  tlian  a  dis- 
turbance, and  whereas  you  tell  us  of  the  work 
of  Reformation  now  in  hand,  no  reasonable 
men  will  force  us  to  desist  from  tlie  practice 
of  that  which  we  are  perswaded  is  according 
to  Truth,  and  waite  for  that  which  we  knowe 
not  what  it  will  be ;  and  in  the  meantime  prac- 
tice that  which  you  yourselves  say  must  be 
reformed"  (pp.  12-14.  London,  1645). 

William  Kiffln,  Thomas  Patient,  JohnSpils- 
buryand  John  Pearson,  four  of  the  most  prom- 
inent Baptists  of  tliose  times,  wrote  an  intro- 
duction to  a  book  written  by  Daniel  King, 
which  was  published  in  1650,  entitled,  "A  Way 
to  Zion,  Sought  Out,  and  Found,  for  Believers 
to  Walk  In."  Tliis  startling  proposition  in 
the  first  part  is  proved,  "1.  ThatGod  hatii  had 
a  people  on  earth,  ever  since  the  coming  of  Christ 
in  the  flesh,  throughout  the  darkest  times  of 
Popery,  which  he  hath  owned  as  Saints  and  as 
his  people." 

The  third  part  ''Proveth  that  Outward  Ordi- 
nances, and  amongst  the  rest  the  Ordinance  of 
Baptism,  is  to  contimie  in  the  Church,  and  this 
Truth  cleared  up  from  intricate  turnings  and 
windings,  clouds  and  mists  that  make  the  way 
doubtful  and  dark." 

I  think  some  people  would  have  spasms  if 
some  prominent  Baptist  author  were  to  put 
forth  and  "prove"  the  above  propositions.  But 
these  words  of  Daniel  King  did  not  disturb 
William  Kiffin,  and  these  other  Baptist 
preachers.  These  men  declared  that  the  as- 
sertion that  "there  are  no  churches  in  the 
world"  and  "no  true  ministers"  has  been  of 
"singularuseinthehandsof  the  devil.'  I  quote 
a  portion  of  the  words  iu  the  introduction : 


"The  devil  hath  mustered  up  all  his  forces 
of  late  to  blind  and  pester  the  minds  of  good 
people,  to  keep  them  from  the  clear  knowl- 
edge and  practice  of  the  way  of  God,  either  in 
possessing  people  still  with  old  corrupt  princi- 
ples; or  if  they  have  been  taken  of  them,  then 
to  perswade  with  them  that  there  are  no 
churches  in  the  world,  and  that  persons  can- 
not come  to  the  practice  of  Ordinances,  there 
being  no  true  ministry  in  the  world ;  and  oth- 
ers they  run  in  another  desperate  extreme, 
holding  Christ  to  be  a  shadow,  and  all  his  Gos 
pel  and  Ordinances  like  himself,  fleshy  and 
carnall.  This  generation  of  people  have  been 
of  singular  use  in  the  hand  of  the  Devil  to  ad- 
vance his  kingdom,  and  to  make  war  against 
the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  Jesus.  Now  none 
have  been  more  painfull  than  these  have  been 
of  late,  to  poison  the  City,  the  Country,  the 
Army,  so  far  as  they  could ;  inasmuch  as  it  lay 
upon  some  of  our  spirits  as  a  duty  to  put  out 
our  weak  ability  for  the  discovering  of  these 
grosse  errors  and  mistakes ;  but  it  hath  pleased 
God  to  stir  up  the  spirit  of  our  Brother,  Daniel 
King.,  whom  we  judge  a  faithful!  and  painfull 
minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  take  this  work  in 
hand  before  us ;  and  we  judge  he  hath  been 
much  assisted  of  God  in  the  work  in  which  he 
hath  been  very  painfull.  We  shall  not  need 
to  say  much  of  the  Treatise ;  only  in  brief,  it  is 
his  method  to  follow  the  Apostles'  rule,  prove 
everyt  hing  by  the  evidence  of  Scripture  light 
expounding  Scripture  by  Scripture,  and  God 
hath  helped  him  in  this  discourse,  we  judge, 
beyond  any  who  hath  dealt  upon  this  subject 
that  is|extant,  in  proving  the  truth  of  Churches, 
against  all  such  that  have  gone  under  the 
name  of  Seekers,  and  hath  very  well, and  with 
great  evidence  of  Scripture  light  answered  to 
all,  or  most  of  their  Objections  of  might,  as 
also  those  above,  or  beyond  Ordinances." 

Nor  was  William  Kiffin  alone  in  this  opin- 


2T 

ion.  Thomas  Grantham  was  one  of  the  great- 
est Baptist  writers  of  that  century,  and  he 
said:  ''That  many  of  the  learned  have  much 
abused  this  age,  in  telling  them  that  the  Ana- 
baptists (i.  e.,  the  Baptized  Churches)  are  of  a 
late  edition,  a  new  sect,  etc.,  when  from  their 
own  writhigs  the  clean  contrary  is  so  evident" 
(Christianismus  Primitivus,  pp.  92,  93). 

Joseph  Hooke,  another  Baptist  writer  of  the 
same  century,  put  forth  the  same  claim  for  the 
long  continuance  of  the  Baptists  in  England. 
He  says:  "Thus  having  shewed  negatively, 
when  this  sect  called  Ana-Baptists  did  not  be- 
gin, we  shall  show  in  the  next  place  affirma- 
tively, when  it  did  begin;  for  a  beginning  it 
had,  and  it  concerns  us  to  enquire  for  the 
Fountain  Head  of  this  Sect ;  for  if  I  were  sure 
that  it  were  no  older  than  the  Munster-Fiqht 
that  Mr.  Erratt  puts  in  mind  of,  I  would  -Re- 
solve to  forsake  it,  and  would  persuade  others 
to  do  so  too. 

''TJiat  religion  that  is  not  as  old  as  Christ  and  his 
apostles  is  too  new  for  me. 

"But  secondly,  affirmatively,  we  are  fully 
perswaded,  and  therefore  do  boldly,  tho'  hum- 
bly, assert,  tliat  this  Sect  is  the  very  same  sort 
of  People  that  were  first  called  Christians  m 
Antioch,  Acts  11,  26.  But  sometimes  called 
ISTazarenes,  Acts  2-4, 5.  And  as  they  are  every- 
where spoken  against  now,  even  so  they  were 
in  the  Primitive  Times.  Acts  28,22"  (A  Neces- 
sary Apology  for  the  Baptists,  p.  19). 

Nor  is  that  an  antiquated  idea  among  the 
Baptists  of  England.  Many  of  the  most  intel- 
ligent Baptists  of  England  believe  that  the 
Baptists  date  back  to  the  very  days  of  the 
Apostles.  The  Eev.  George  P.  Gould,  to  whom 
I  have  before  referred,  is  now  editing  and 
bringing  out  a  series  of  Baptist  Manuals,  his- 
torical and  biographical.  In  1895  he  published 
one  on  Hanserd  Knollys,  by  James  Culross, 
M.A.,  D.D.,  ex-president    of    Bristol    Baptist 


28 

College.  After  stating  that  Hanserd  Knollys 
became  a  sectary,  probably  in  1631,  he  declares 
"Had  Baptists  thought  anything  depended  on 
it,  they  might  have  traced  their  pedigree  back 
to  New  Testament  times,  and  claimed  apos- 
tolic succession.  The  channel  of  succession 
was  certainly  purer  if  humbler,  than  through 
the  apostate  church  of  Rome.  But  they  were 
content  to  rest  on  Scripture  alone,  and, as  they 
found  only  believers'  baptism  there,  they  ad- 
hered to  that"  (p.  39,  note). 

I  mention  these  facts,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
proving  Baptist  succession,  for  that  topic  is  not 
under  discussion  in  this  paper,  but  for  a  two- 
fold j)urpose.  The  first  is  that  William  KifRn 
could  have  had  no  connection  with  this  so- 
called  "KifRn"  Manuscript,  and  tlie  second  is 
that  the  Baptists  ot  that  century  knew  nothing 
of  the  alleged  "facts"  as  given  in  this  docu- 
ment. 

III. 

It  has  been  claimed  tliat  our  people  were 
called  Anabaptists  before  1641,  and  that  they 
practiced  believers'  sprinkling,  while  after 
1611,  when  they  adopted  immersion,  they  were 
on  that  account  called  Baptists.  The  follow- 
ing is  the  claim:  "But  so  long  as  their  conten- 
tion related  merely  to  the  subjects  of  baptisiTt 
they  could  never  shake  off  the  name  Anabap- 
tists. Their  act  of  baptism  being  the  same  as 
that  employed  by  other  Christians,  namely, 
pouring  and  sprinkling,  it  was  always  de- 
scribed as  mere  repetition  of  baptism — as  Ana- 
baptism.  But  when  another  act  was  intro- 
duced, namely,  immersion,  it  then  became 
possible  for  the  brethren  to  obtain  a  new  des- 
ignation. Henceforth  they  were  called  'bap- 
tized Christians,'  par  excellence,  and  in  due  time 
Baptists.  The  earliest  instance  in  which  this 
name  occurs  as  a  denominational  designation, 
so  far  as  my  information  goes,  befell  in  the 


29 

year  1644,  three  years  after  immersion  had 
been  introduced"  (Question  in  Baptist  His- 
tory). 

There  are  three  answers  to  this  statement, 
either  of  which  is  conclusive : 

1.  Sprinkling  was  just  now  only  coming 
into  use  in  England  in  1641,  and  the  Baptists, 
since  all  denominations  practiced  immersion 
in  England,  did  not  have  to  protest  against  it 
before  this  time.  The  Baptists  always  stood 
against  living  errors.  The  earliest  charges 
against  them  in  England  after  the  Reforma- 
tion was  that  they  denied  the  popish  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation,and  so  they  were  burned 
to  death  on  that  account.  Later  the  point  of 
their  contention  was  that  infant  baptism  was 
not  according  to  the  Word  of  God,  so  they 
were  put  to  death  on  that  account.  And  when 
sprinkling  began  to  prevail,  at  the  end  of  the 
Civil  Wars,  they  vigorously  protested  against 
that.  Tliere  had  been  no  occasion  to  protest 
against  sprinkling  previously.  This  is  a  com- 
plete and  full  answer  to  the  above  claim,  and 
the  objection  is  based  upon  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  the  history  of  those  times,  and  at  best 
is  a  begging  of  the  whole  question  at  issue, 

2.  The  name  Anabaptists  was  always  repu- 
diated by  the  Baptists  before  and  after  1641. 
It  never  did  describe  them  and  never  was  ac- 
cepted by  them ;  and  the  name  Anabaptist  was 
applied  to  them  no  less  after  1641  than  before. 
Even  to  this  day  the  name  is  applied  to  them. 
There  was  no  change  in  the  Baptist  opinion  on 
the  subject  before  or  after  1641.  Thomas  Col- 
lie was  a  Baptist  long  before  1641.  Indeed,  he 
was  a  Baptist  before  1635,  for  he  was  in  prison 
at  that  date  for  being  a  Baptist  (Calendar  of 
State  Papers,  vol.  282.  fol.  82).  He  linked  the 
word  Anabaptist  with  ''baptized  Christians," 
which  was  always  understood  to  mean  im- 
mersed Christians  in  those  days.  His  words 
are:  "They  (these  persecutors)  would  say  as 


much  of  the  Anabaptists,  or  rather  of  the  bap- 
tSzed  Christians  of  this  Nation."  He  further 
says  that  these  persons  are  "malitiously  mis- 
taken," and  show  their  ignorance  '-in  calling 
them  Anabaptists,  for  the  practising  Baptism, 
according  to  the  Scripture,  that  grieves  you 
it  seems ;  but  you  have  learnt  a  new  way,  both 
for  matter  and  manner :  for  matter.  Babies  in- 
stead of  believers:  for  manner,  sprinkling  at 
the  holy  Font,  instead  of  baptizing  in  a  River: 
you  are  loth  to  go  in  with  your  long  gowns, 
you  have  found  a  better  way  than  was  ever 
prescribed  or  practised ;  who  now  Sir  are  the 
Ignoramuses?"  Here,  then,  a  Baptist  who 
lived  in  1641,  writing  ten  years  later,  says  that 
the  word  Anabaptist  meant  a  denial  of  infant 
baptism,  and  included  immersion  as  opposed 
to  sprinkling.  The  objection  to  the  name  An- 
abaptist among  the  Baptists  of  1641  was  pre- 
cisely the  objection  of  the  Baptists  of  1898,  viz. : 
it  carried  with  it  the  idea  of  the  repetition  of 
baptism,  which  Baptists  have  always  repudi- 
ated. I  would  not  give  the  testimony  of  this 
Baptist,  who  lived  and  suffered  in  those  days, 
for  all  the  croaking  objections  of  these  days. 

If  the  above  objection,  that  the  Baptists  of 
1641  changed  their  minds  on  immersion,  that 
the  word  Anabaptists  describes  those  who 
j)racticed  sprinkling,  and  the  word  Baptist 
afterwards  described  the  same  people  who  had 
become  dippers,  then  the  writers  of  the  Bap- 
tist Confession  of  Faith  deliberately  attempt- 
ed to  falsify  the  facts.  These  fifteen  men  put 
forth  an  article  declaring  that  dipping  was 
baptism,  and  that  they  were  falsely  though 
commonly  known  by  the  name  of  Anabaptists. 
They  admitted  that  the  name  Anabaptist  was 
the  common  name  which  wasapi^lied  to  them, 
and  there  was  no  denying  that  they  were  the 
people  who  had  long  been  in  England  under 
that  name.  But  they  could  not  have  used  the 
word  falsely  if  they  had  been  sprinklers  be- 


SI 

fore.  What  they  would  have  said  before  was, 
«^e  have  changed  our  mind,  and  we  shall  prac- 
tice immersion  after  this,  and  so  are  no  longer 
Anabaptists,  but  Baptists. 

3.  The  Pedobaptista  continued  to  call  them 
Anabaptists.  It  is  safe  to  say  where  they 
were  called  Baptists  once  by  their  opi^onents 
in  that  century,  they  were  called  Anabaptists 
twenty  times.  In  a  book  which  now  lies  be- 
fore me  entitled  "An  Ax  laid  at  the  root  of  the 
Tree:  or,  a  Discourse  wherein  the  Anabaptist 
Mission  &  Ministry  are  Examin'd  and  Dis- 
prov'd,"  and  bearing  date  London,  1715,  writ- 
ten 74  years  after  1641,  these  Baptists  are 
called  Anabaptists.  Baptists  in  England  are 
now  not  unfrequently  called  Anabaptists.  The 
author  of  1715  and  the  authors  of  this  day 
could  not  possibly  mean  to  say  that  the  Bap- 
tists of  these  dates  were  sprinklers,  and  yet 
that  must  be  the  meaning  if  this  objection  has 
any  weight.  To  state  the  objection  is  to  re- 
fute it. 

Furthermore,  the  same  author  would  call 
them  both  Baptists  and  Anabaptists,  which 
could  not  be  true  if  the  objection  that  Anabap- 
tists meant  those  who  practiced  sprinkling, 
and  Baptists  those  who  dipped.  For  exam- 
ple, I.  E.,  in  his  ''The  Anabaptist  Groundwork 
for  Eeformation,"  says:  ''I  ask  T.  L.  and  the 
rest  of  those  Baptists,  or  Dippers,  that  will  not 
be  called  Anabaptists  (though  they  baptize 
some  that  have  been  twice  baptized  before) 
what  rule  they  have  by  word  or  example  in 
Scripture,  for  their  going  men  and  women  to- 
gether into  the  water  and  for  their  manner  of 
dipping,  and  every  circumstance  and  action 
they  perform  concerning  the  same"  (p.  23.  B. 
M.  E.60.  (2)).  Now  this  work,  which  was 
written  in  1644,  demonstrates  that  the  same 
people  were  called  by  the  same  author  Bap- 
tists and  Anabaptists,  and  that  the  Baptists 
repudiated  the  name  Anabaptist.    The  author 


32 

called  them  Baptists  because  they  dipped 
"men  and  women  together  into  the  water," 
and  he  called  them  Anabaptists  because  "they 
baptize  some  that  have  been  twice  baptized 
before."  I  do  not  see  how  a  clearer  distinctio^x 
could  be  drawn. 

I  have  already  a[uoted  tl:ie  caption  to  the 
"KifRn"  Manuscript  and  of  the  Jessey  Church 
Records,  and  shown  that  instead  of  giving 
light  on  the  authors  of  these  documents,  they 
conceal  the  truth,  but  I  desire  now  to  point 
out  that  the  statements  themselves  are  false 
and  contradictory.  The  Jessey  Records  say: 
"The  Records  of  an  Antient  Congrpgation  of 
Dissenters  from  wch  many  of  ye  Iiidepcndant 
&  Baptist  Churches  in  London  took  their  first 
rise  :  ex  MSS  of  Mr.  H  Jessey,  wch  I  recieved 
of  Mr.  Rich  Adams."  The  "Kiffin"  Manu- 
script says :  "An  old  Mss,  giveing  some  Accott 
of  those  Baptists  who  first  formed  themselves 
into  distinct  congregations,  or  Churches  in 
London,  found  among  certain  Paper  given  me 
by  Mr.  Adams." 

The  claims  set  forth  in  the  above  statements 
are  false  in  almos  i  every  particular : 

1.  These  are  the  words  of  tlie  compiler,  who 
did  not  write  before  1710-11.  The  spelling  and 
words  are  all  his.  It  is  known  positively  that 
he  added  the  title  to  every  one  of  the  thirty 
papers  of  this  compilation,  and  that  tliese  two 
documents  constitute  two  of  the  thirty  papers 
in  his  motley  collection.  It  therefore  follows 
that  the  very  first  thing  found  in  both  of  these 
manuscripts  was  added  by  a  later  hand,  and 
yet  added  in  isuch  a  way  as  to  leave  the  im- 
pression that  the  words  of  this  compiler  were 
the  words  of  tlie  original  manuscript. 

2.  The  Jessey  church  was  declared  to  bo  an 
"antient  congregation"  at  this  time,  which  is 
false.  It  was  only  organized  in  1616,  and  was 
therefore  in  1641  not  a  quarter  of  a  century  old. 

3.  The  two  accounts  contradict  each  other. 


The  Jessey  Records  say  that  "many"  of  "the 
Baptist  churches  took  their  first  rise"  from 
this  church  leaving  the  plain  alternative  that 
other  Baptist  churches  of  London  had  another 
origin;  but  the  "KifBn"'  Manuscript  makes  the 
distinct  statement  that  the  first  Baptist 
churches  of  London  originated  in  this  Jessey 
church.  These  statements  are,  therefore,  con- 
tradictory and  hence  unreliable. 

4.  Both  of  these  documents  call  these  con- 
gregations "Baptist  churches."  The  word 
"  Baptist"  was  not  in  use  at  that  time  to  des- 
ignate our  people,  and  the  phrase  "Baptist 
churchefe"  was  not  in  use  in  England  till  long 
afterwards.  These  documents  are  therefore  a 
false  record  and  cannot  be  depended  upon. 

5.  The  statement  that  "many"  or  "all" 
Baptist  churches  of  London  came  out  of  the 
Jessey  church  is  false.  Furthermore,  there  is 
no  proof  that  even  one  Baptist  churcli  ever 
came  out  of  this  Jessey  church.  I  demand  the 
proof.  Neither  do  the  Jessey  Church  Becords 
nor  the  "KiflEin"  ManuscrijJt,  outside  of  tliese 
superscriptions,  wliich  we  are  now  examining, 
contain  any  sucli  suggestion.  Indeed  some  of 
the  members  of  this  Jessey  church  "joyned" 
Mr.  Spilsbury 's  church  in  1638.  It  would  be  very 
difficult  to  explain  how  these  seceders  could  join 
an  organization  which  had  no  existence.  The 
Crosby  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  declares  (vol.  1, 
pp.  148, 150)  that  this  entire  transaction  oc- 
curred in  1633,  and  not  in  1638,  and  thus  con- 
tradicts both  the  Jessey  Records  and  the 
Gould  "Kiffin"  Manuscript.  The  statement 
that  "many"  or  "all"  the  churches  of  London 
had  their  rise  in  this  Jessey  church,  therefore, 
is  false. 

6.  The  statement  that  the  "Baptist  church- 
es" of  London  or  of  England  in  1638  "first 
formed  themselves  into  distinct  congrega- 
tions" is  false.  Nothing  can  be  further  from 
the   truth.    Any  one    who    is  at    all  familiar 

3 


•with  the  history  of  the  Baptists  of  England 
from  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Eiglith  till  the 
close  of  tlie  Civil  Wars  will  be  solemnly  con- 
vinced that  all  the  Baptists  were  not  only  not 
associated  witli  the  "Dissenters"  and  "Inde- 
pendents," but  that  the  Baptists  had  no  more 
hostile  enemies  than  these,  and  tliat  tlie  Inde- 
pendents took  every  opportunity  to  denounce 
them  and  declare  tliat  there  was  no  connection 
between  them.  Jolm  Lewis,  the  bigoted  Epis- 
copalian, denounces  tliis  statement  that  they 
then  began  to  separate  from  the  Independents 
as  a  "mistake,"  since,  says  he,  "They  all  dis- 
claimed tliem"  (Rawl.  C.409).  The  constant 
l^ersecutious  of  the  Baptists  under  the  name 
of  Anabaptists  is  sufficient  refutation  of  the 
silly  assertion  tliat  they  only  began  to  sepa- 
rate from  tlie  Independents  in  1638. 

The  proof  tliat  Baptist  churclies  existed  in 
England  before  1638  is  so  adequate  and  so  often 
confessed  that  one  does  not  know  how  to  ac- 
count for  a  denial  of  it.  Tlie  simple  question 
at  this  moment  is  not  what  wa^  tlie  act  of  bap- 
tism among  them,  but  were  there  such  cliurch- 
es.  I  would  not  argue  the  question  a  inoment 
were  it  not  tliat  tliis  Gould  "Kiffin"  Manu- 
script and  this  Jessey  Church  Record  make 
this  astounding  assertion,  and  I  crave  the  par- 
don of  tlie  reader  while  I  point  out  how  thor- 
oughly unreliable  these  "genuine  Records"  (?) 
are.  With  all  his  triinming  and  "waiving  the 
enquiry  whether  there  had  been,  at  some  time 
previous  to  1600,  Baptist  churches"  in  Eng- 
land, Dr.  Dexter  is  constrained  to  admit:  "It 
seems  to  me  to  be  conceded  upon  all  hands 
that  when  Helwys  and  Murton  re-crossed  the 
German  Ocean  from  Holland,  in  or  about  1612, 
the  church  which  they  founded  in  Newgate 
was  the  first  Bai)tist  churcli,  and  the  only  one 
then  in  England  in  that  century.  By  1626  we 
can  trace  possibly  ten  others,  making  eleven 
in  all,  viz.,  those  in  London,  Lincoln, Tiverton, 


Salisbury,  Coventry,  Stoney  Stratford,  Ash- 
ford,  Biddenden  and  Eyethorne  iu  Kent,  Can- 
terbury, and  Anersham  in  Buckinghamshire" 
(True  Story  of  John  Smyth,  pp.  41,  42).  While 
I  do  not  at  all  agree  with  the  late  date  as- 
signed to  some  of  these  churches,  and  that  this 
church  of  Helwys'  "was  the  first  Baptist 
church,  and  the  only  one  then  in  England,"  I 
I)resent  this  statement  of  Dexter's  to  show 
how  utterly  worthless  is  the  statement  of  the 
"KiflBn"  Manuscript  and  the  Jessey  Records 
when  they  assert  that  the  first  Baptist  church- 
es were  organized  out  of  the  Jessey  church  in 
1638. 

Perhaps  Dr.  Angus  has  given  more  attention 
to  English  Baptist  cliurches  than  any  other 
Englishman,  and  he  says:  "That  tliere  was  no 
such  delay  in  forming  Baptist  churclies  as  our 
American  friends  have  supposed,  is  proved  by 
tlie  dates  of  the  formation  of  a  number  of 
them.  Churches  were  formed,  chapels  built 
and  doctrines  defined  long  before  1641,  and 
others,  down  to  the  end  of  that  century,  owed 
nothing  probably  to  the  discussions  of  that 
year. 

"The  following  churches,  formed  in  the 
years  mentioned,  still  remain:  Braintree,  Eye- 
thorne, Sutton,  all  in  1550;  Warrington,  1522; 
Crowle  and  Epworth,  both  1597;  Bridgewater, 
Oxford,  and  Sadmore,  1600;  Bristol  (Broad- 
mead),  1640;  King,  Stanley,  Newcastle,  Kil- 
mington  (Devon),  Bedford,  Sutton,  Cirences- 
ter, Commercial-street  (London),  Lincoln, 
Dorchester,  and  Hamsterley,  in  1633;  Lyme 
Regis,  Chipping  Sodbury,  Upottery,  Boston, 
etc.,  1650  to  1658. 

Many  others  that  belong  to  similar  dates 
have  since  become  extinct  through  change  of 
population  and  other  causes.  Most  of  these 
churches  hold  the  common  faith,  and  most  of 
them  have  received  it  without  special  refer- 
'   ence  to  the  creed  of  1641.    Dates  and  particu- 


lars  of  more  churches  may  be  seen  in  any  re- 
cent number  of  the  Baptist  Handbook,  published 
by  the  Baptist  Union." 

The  original  authorities  for  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed by  these  authors,  that  there  were  Bap- 
tist churches  in  England  before  1641,  could  be 
given  at  great  length. 

The  testimony  to  this  position  is  so  ample, 
and  the  admissions  of  competent  Pedobaptist 
historians  so  direct  that  J  am  embarrassed  by 
the  amount  of  material  at  hand.  I  shall,  how- 
ever, mention  three  Pedobaptist  scholars. 
Herbert  S.  Skeats,  the  historian  of  the  Free 
churches, says:  "It  has  been  asserted  that  a 
Baptist  church  existed  in  England  in  A.  D. 
1417  (Robinson's  Claude,  Vol  II.,  p.  64).  There 
were  certainly  Baptist  churches  in  England  as 
early  as  the  year  1589  (Dr.  Some's  rei^ly  to 
Barrowe,  quoted  in  Guiney's  Hist.,  Vol.  I.,  p. 
109) ;  and  there  could  scarcely  have  been  sev- 
eral organized  communities  without  the  cor- 
responding opinions  having  been  held  by  in- 
dividuals, and  some  churches  established  for 
years  previous  to  this  date"  (Hist,  Dissenting 
Churches  of  England,  p.  22). 

The  Baptists  had  so  wonderfully  prosi)ered 
thauNeal  says  that  in  1644  they  had  54  church- 
es (Neal's  Hist.  Puritans,  Vol.  3,  p.  175).  And 
it  will  be  remembered  that  in  the  opinion  of 
Neal  a  Baptist  was  always  an  immersionist. 
All  of  Crosby's  material  for  a  Baptist  history 
was  in  his  hands,  but  he  never  suspected  that 
any  Baptist  ever  sprinkled.  His  words  are  de- 
cisive :  "Tiieir  confession  consisted  of  52  arti- 
cles and  is  strictly  Calvinistical  in  the  doc- 
trinal part,  and  according  to  the  independent 
discipline,  it  confines  the  subjects  of  baptism 
to  grown  Christians  and  the  mode  to  immer- 
sion. The  advocates  of  this  doctrine  were  for 
the  most  part  of  the  meanest  of  the  people ; 
their  preachers  were  generally  illiterate  and 
went  about  the  country  making  proselytes  of 


37 

all  who  would  submit  to  immersion.  *  *  *  The 
people  of  this  persuasion  were  most  exposed 
to  the  public  resentments,  because  they  would 
hold  communion  with  none  but  such  as  had 
been  dipped.  All  must  pass  under  the  cloud 
before  they  could  be  received  into  their  church- 
es; and  the  same  narrow  spirit  prevails  too 
generally  among  them  to  this  dav"  (History 
of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  174-176). 

The  original  authorities  for  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed by  these  authors  could  be  given  at 
length,  but  I  apprehend  that  this  is  not  neces- 
sary at  this  moment.  I  do  wish,  however, 
to  present  the  testimony  of  a  Baptist  who  lived 
and  was  one  of  the  principal  actors  in  those 
times.  He  tells  in  simi^le  language  the  story 
of  the  planting  of  those  London  Baptist 
churches  in  the  days  of  persecution  before 
1641.  The  title  of  this  book  is:  "A Moderate 
Answer  Unto  Dr.  Bastwick's  Book  Called  'In- 
dependency Not  God's  Ordinance.'  Wherein 
is  declared  the  manner  how  some  churches  in 
this  city  were  gathered, and  upon  whattearmes 
their  members  were  admitted ;  that  so  both 
the  Dr.  and  the  Reader  may  judge  how  near 
some  Believers  who  walk  together  in  the  Fel- 
lowship of  the  Gospell  do  come  in  their  prac- 
tice to  the  Apostolicall  rules  which  are  pro- 
pounded by  the  Dr.  as  God's  Method  in  gath- 
ering Churches  and  Admitting  Members.  By 
Hanserd  Knollys,  London,  1646."  Of  course, 
such  a  book  is  authoritative  and  worth  a  thou- 
sand guesses.    Knollys  says : 

"I  shall  now  take  the  liberty  to  declare, 
what  I  know  by  mine  own  experience  to  be  the 
practice  of  some  Churches  of  God  in  this  City. 
That  so  far  both  the  Dr.  and  the  Reader  may 
judge  how  near  the  Saints,  who  walk  in  the 
fellowship  of  the  Gospell,  do  come  to  their 
practice,  to  these  Apostolicall  rules  and  prac- 
tice propounded  by  the  Dr.  as  God's  method 
ingathering  churches,  and  admitting  Mem- 


bers,  I  say  that  I  know  by  mine  own  experi- 
ence (having  walked  witli  them),  that  they 
were  thus  gathered,  viz.:  Some  godly  and 
learned  men  of  approved  gifts  and  abilities  for 
the  Ministrie,  being  driven  out  of  the  Coun- 
tries where  they  lived  by  the  persecution  of 
the  Prelates,  came  to  sojourn  in  this  great 
City,  and  preached  the  word  of  God  both  pub- 
likely  and  from  house  to  house,  and  daily  in 
the  Temple,  and  in  every  house  they  ceased 
not  to  teach  and  preach  Jesus  Chridt:  and 
some  of  them  have  dwelt  in  their  own  hired 
houses,  and  received  all  that  came  in  unto 
them,  preaching  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and 
teaching  those  things  which  concern  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  And  when  many  sinners  were 
converted  by  their  preaching  of  the  Gospell, 
some  of  them  believers,  consorted  with  them, 
and  of  professors  a  great  many,  and  of  the 
chief  women  not  a  few.  And  the  condition 
which  those  Preachers,  both  publikely  and 
privately  propounded  to  the  people,  unto  whom 
they  preached,  upon  which  they  were  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Church  was  Faith,  Repent- 
ance, and  Baptism,  and  none  other.  And 
whosoever  (poor  as  well  as  rich,  bond  as  well 
as  free,  servants  as  well  as  Masters),  did  make 
a  profession  of  their  Faith  in  Christ  Jesus, 
and  wouldbebaptized  with  water,  in  the  Name 
of  the  Father,  Sonne,  and  Holy  Spirit,  were 
admitted  Members  of  the  Church ;  but  such  as 
did  not  believe,  and  would  not  be  baptized, 
they  would  notadmitinto  Church  communion 
This  hath  been  the  practice  of  some  Churches 
of  God  in  this  City,  without  urging  or  making 
any  particular  covenant  with  Members  upon 
admittance,  which  I  desire  may  be  examined 
by  the  Scripture  cited  in  the  Margent,  and 
then  compared  with  the  Doctor's  three  conclu- 
sions from  the  same  Scriptures,  whereby  it 
may  appear  to  the  judicious  Reader,  how  near 
the  Churches  some  of  them  come  to  the  prac- 


tice  of  the  Apostles  rules,  and  practice  of  the 
primitive  churches,  both  in  gathering  and  ad- 
mitting members"  (Pp.  24,  25^. 

i-h«M,f'i«^f;''''*l'''  parsing  that  no  one  denies 
tnat  in  lb46,  when  this  was  written,  Knollvs 
was  an  immersionist,  so  when  speaking  of  the 
practice  of  baptizing  "with  water"  by  the  Bap- 
tist churches  of  London  he  must  have  meant 
immersion.  And  since  he  not  even  hints  at 
any  change  of  the  ordinance  by  these  church- 
es, such  must  have  been  their  practice  from 
we^nl  ''''^^'''^^*^^^'    so  far    as  his   knowledge 

I  would  not  exchange  the  testimony  of  this 
Baptist  preacher,  who  was  pastor  of  one  of 
the  very  churches  in  question,  and  writing  at 

n  pTf^7  *'"'"'  'r.'^J^  '''^  "Kiffl^"  Ma^uscrfpts 
in  existence  and  the  other  variations  of  that 
famous  document,  which  may  be  discovered 
when  some  Baptist  may  have  a  vagary  to  ex- 

ization  of  these  Calvinistic  Baptist  churches 
there  can  be  no  question.  And  it  is  equally  cer- 
tain that  he  gives  not  the  least  hint  about  these 
churches  al  coming  out  of  the  Jessey  church! 
The  reason  IS  perfectly  plain;  nothing  of  the 
sort  ever  happened.  It  did  split  all  t? 
'^ifS''  ?*''  the  subject  of  immersion,  but  the 
first  Baptist  churches  of  England  had  no 
such  origin.  Therefore  the  "Kiffin''  Manu 
script  and  the  Jessey  Church  Records  are  not 
authoritative  nor  of  any  value.  Let  the  reader 
bear  in  mind  that  this  ''Kiffin"  ManuscrlpUs 
wffh  It  *7^dation  for  the  "1641  theo?y." 
With  the  foundation  destroyed,  the  theorv 
tumbles  into  chaos.  cneory 

H  Jh  ^Qi  '^  ^  ''^'',°'^'^  ^^^^  ^^  1^^5-6,  Feb.  20.  Lam- 
beth.  34.  complaint  was  made  that  the  Ana- 
K??.  '"^^'^  V^  Sundays  and  other  festwll 
mif  f  ^'T^  *?  *^^'^  P^^ish  churches,  but  do 
meet  together  in  great  numbers  on  suoh  days 


and  at  other  times,  in  private  houses  and 
places,  and  there  keep  conventicles  and  exer- 
cises of  religion,  by  the  laws  of  the  realm  pro- 
hibited." 

We  have  in  the  same  year,  Jan.  11,  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Higli  Court  of  Commissioners,  vol. 
cclxi.  fol.  307.  b.,  charges  preferred  against 
Francis  Jones,  of  Ratclifl,  Middlesex,  basket- 
maker.  "Being  charged  that  he  is  a  schis- 
matic recussant,  and  that  he  has  long  fore- 
borne  to  come  to  his  parish  cliurch  to  hear  di- 
vine service  said  and  to  receive  the  holy  com- 
munion, and  that  he  useth  to  keep  private 
conventicles  and  exercises  of  religion,  and 
tliat  he  is  an  Anabaptist,  and  for  that  he  con- 
fesseth  he  hath  been  rebaptized,  he  was  com- 
mitted to  Newgate."  Note  he  was  "rebap- 
tized." 

I  do  not  care  to  pursue  this  line  of  investiga- 
tion at  this  time  to  any  greatlength.  Barclay, 
who  cannot  be  regarded  as  very  jDartial  to  the 
Baptists,  and  who  has  been  quoted  largely  by 
those  who  believe  in  "1641,"  is  pleased  to  say: 

"As  we  shall  afterwards  show, the  rise  of  the 
Anabaptists'  took  place  long  prior  to  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Church  of  England,  and  there  are 
also  reasons  for  believing  that  on  the  Continent 
of  Europe,  small  hidden  societies,  who  have 
held  many  of  the  opinions  of  the  Anabaptists, 
have  existed  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles. 
In  the  sense  of  the  direct  transmission  of  di- 
vine truth  and  the  true  nature  of  spiritual  re- 
ligion, it  seems  probable  tliat  these  churches 
have  a  lineage  or  succession  more  ancient  than 
the  Roman  Church"  (Barclay's  Inner  Life  of 
Religious  Societies,  p.  12). 

All  this  shows  that  the  statements  of  the 
"Kiffin"  (?)  Manuscript  are  not  true.  The 
first  English  Baptists  did  not  begin  in  1641, 
nor  in  1633,  not  at  any  date  near  these. 


41 

IV. 

The  "Jessey  Church  Records"  open  with  an 
elaborate  account  of  the  books  written  by  Mr. 
Jacob.     Of  course,  if  this  were  a  minute  of  the 
church,  the  "Records"   or  minutes   should  set 
down  a  correct  account  of  the  first  pastor  of 
the  church.    This  the  document  attempts  to 
do,  and  yet  it  misses  the  facts  in  the   case  in 
almost  every  particular.     They  give  a  list  of 
the  books  written  by  Mr.  Jacob,  aud  the  dates 
at  which  they  were  written.    Yet  it  is  a  re- 
markable fact  that  the  author  of  the  records 
did  not  know  the  titles  of  Mr.  Jacob's  books  nor 
tho  dates  when  they  were  written.    The   docu- 
ment gives  the  following  title  and  date  to  one  of 
Mr.  Jacob'sbooks :  "The  Divine  Beginning&  In- 
stitution of  a  Visible  Church, proeving  ye  same 
by  many  Arguments  opening  Matth :  xviii.  15, 
wth  a  declaration  and  fuller  evidence  of  some 
things  therein:"  and   the  date  is  set  down  at 
1612.    The  following  is  the  correct  title:  "The 
Divine  Beginning  and   Institution  of  Christs 
true  Visible  or  Ministeriall  Church.    Also  the 
Unchangeableness  of  the   same  by  men:   viz. 
in  the  forme  &essentiall  constitution   thereof. 
Written  by  Henry  Jacob.     Imprinted  at  Ley- 
den  by  Henry  Hastings.    1610."    (British  Mu- 
seum, 4103.  b).     It  will  therefore  be  seen  that 
neither  the  date  nor  the  title  corresponds  with 
the  facts  in  the  case.    The  book  was  printed 
two  years  before  the  "genuine  records"  (?)  pay 
it  was.    It  will  not  only  be  seen  that  the  auth- 
or of  the  "Jessey  Records"  was  ignorant  of  the 
title  of  Mr.  Jacob's  book  and  the  time  when  it 
was  written,  but  that  the  spelling  and  forms  of 
expression  are  those  of  the  person  who  began  to 
"make  this  collection  in  Jan.  1710-11."    The 
words  "wch"  and  "proveing"  are  a  clear  give- 
away.   It  is  hard  for  the  "Collector"  to  cover 
up    his    tracks    in    his    "Faithful    Extracts." 
Fraud  is  written  upon  almost  every  line  of 


42 

these  "genuine  (?)  church  records.'* 

The  ignorance  of  the  author  of  the  document 
is  further  shown  by  reference  to  another  work 
written  by  Mr.  Jacob.  This  document  gives 
the  name  of  the  book  as  follows:  "An  Attesta- 
tion of  ye  most  famious  and  approved  Authors 
witnessing  wth  one  mouth  ye  each  Church  of 
Christ  should  be  independent  as  it  should 
have  ye  full  Power  ot  all  ye  Church  affairs  en- 
tire within  itsefe :"  and  the  date  of  this  book  is 
put  down  at  1610.  The  correct  title  is:  "An 
Attestation  of  many  Learned,  Godly,  and  fa- 
mous Divines,  Lighters  of  Religion,  and  pil- 
lars of  the  Gospell,  iustifying  this  doctrine, 
viz.  That  the  Church-government  ought  to  bee 
alwayes  with  the  peoples  free  consent,"  &c., 
and  the  date  is  1613.  The  jjreface  of  the  book 
is  signed  "luly,  18.  Anno  1612"  (British  Mu- 
seum, 698,  a.  35).  The  author  of  these  "Rec- 
ords" in  the  former  instance  gives  a  date  two 
years  too  late,  and  in  this  instance  three 
years  too  early.  Any  one  who  will  take 
the  trouble  to  compare  the  title  as  given 
by  the  anonymous  author  of  the  "Rec- 
ords" with  tlie  true  title  as  given  above, 
will  see  how  little  he  really  knew  about  what 
he  was  discoursing.  The  reader  will  note  here 
again  that  tlie  spelling  and  expressions  of  the 
".Jessey  Records"  all  belong  to  the  man  of 
"1710-11,"  and  not  to  Mr.  Jacob.  The  repeated 
use  of  "ye,"  the  "wth"  and  the  "famious"  all 
say  fraud,  and  that  the  "Jessey  Records"  are 
not  genuine,  to  say  nothing  of  their  being  not 
contemporaneous. 

The  "Jessey  Church  Records"  make  the  fol- 
lowing statements  in  reference  to  Mr.  Jacob : 
"About  eight  years  H.  Jacob  was 
Pastor   of  ye    said  Church  &  when 
upon  liis  importunity  to  go  to  Vir- 
ginia, to  wch  he   had  been  engaged 
before  by  their  consent,  he  was  re- 
1624      mitted  from   his   said  office,  &  dis- 


missed  ye  Congregation  to  go  thither, 
wherein    after    Years   he   ended  his 
'  dayes.    In  the   time   of  his  Service 

much  trouble  attended  that  State  and 
People  within  and  without." 
Without  stopping  to  note  that  the  "&"  and 
the  "ye"  and  other  words  all  point  to  the  man 
who  made  this  "collection  in  1710-11,"  I  desire 
to  show  that  every  statement  in  the  above  ex- 
tract is  contrary  to  the  facts  in  the  case.    Mr. 
Jacob  did  not  serve  this  church  eight  years  but 
only  six  years ;  he  did  not  go  to  Virginia  in  1624 
but  in  1622;  and  he  did  not  in  "after  years"  end 
"his  dayes"  in  Virginia,  but  he  returned  to 
England  in  1624,  and   died  there  in  April  or 
May  of    that  year,  and  was  buried  from  St 
Andrew  Hubbard's  Parish,  Burrough  of  Can- 
terbury   (National    Biography,    Art.    Jacob). 
Ihatistosay,  every  statement  in  the  above 
extract  is  false.     How  do  I  know  all  this?    In 
the  simplest  way  possible.    There  lies  before 
me    the   last   will    and    testament  of   Henry 
Jacob,  "Extracted  from  the  Principal  Registry 
of  the  Probate  Divorce  and  Admiralty  Division 
of  the  High  Court  of  Justice  in  the  Prerogative 
Court  of    Canterbury."    1624.    38— Byrde,  and 
may  be  consulted  at  Somerset  House,  London. 
This  copy  is  taken  from  the  records  and  duly 
signed.      The  will    was   probated    "5th    May 
1624,"  and  his  estate  was  administered   upon 
by  his  wife,  "Sara  Jacob."    He  declares  that 
on  "the  fifth  day  of  October, in  the  yeare  of  our 
Lord  a  thowsand  six  hundred  and  twenty  and 
two,     he  was  "now  goeing  thither"  to  Vir- 
ginia.   Why  he  returned  to  England  I  know 
not,  but  it  is  certain  he  died  in  London  before 
the  5th  day  of  May,  1624,  since  no  man's  will 
IS  probated  till  he  is  dead.    Here  is  evidence 
that  no  man  can  doubt.    The  so-called  "  Jessey 
Church    Records"    are  thus  wrong   in  every 
statement   concerning    this     pastor    of    that 
church. 


44 

It  is  a  significant  and  certainly  a  fatal  objec- 
tion to  these  Records  that  they  follow  the  or- 
dinarily received  statements  in  regard  to 
Jacob  rather  than  the  original  authorities  I 
mean  this:  the  ordinary  statements  in  the  his- 
tories correspond  with  the  "Jessey  Records." 
If  they  are  a  fraud  they  would  follow  supposed 
historical  facts  as  closely  as  possible.  This 
the  "Records"  do.  The  facts  set  forth  in  this 
will  until  now  have  been  unknown  to  histori- 
ans, because  they  did  not  know  this  will  was 
in  existence.  But  the  "Jessey  Records"  fall 
also  into  the  mistakes  of  modern  historians. 
It  is  incredible  that  the  clerk  of  the  Jacob 
church  in  London  could  have  been  ignorant  of 
the  return  and  death  of  Mr.  Jacob,  and  should 
not  even  know  the  year  in  which  Mr.  Jacob 
severed  his  connection  with  the  church.  It  is 
also  incredible  that  the  clerk  of  the  church  did 
not  know  that  the  wife  of  Mr.  Jacob  did  not 
go  with  him  to  Virginia,  but  remained  in  Lon- 
don as  a  member  of  the  church  there.  Mr. 
Jacob  expressly  says  in  his  will  that  his  wife 
and  part  of  his  children  were  to  remain  behind , 
and  if  providence  permitted  to  come  to  Vir- 
ginia the  "ensewing  May;"  but  instead  of  the 
good  wife  going  to  him,  he  came  back  to  her. 
More  than  that,  Sara  Jacob  was  arrested,  along 
with  this  church,  on  the29tliof  April,  1632,  and 
along  with  the  other  members  of  the  cliurch 
was  tried  and  imprisoned  May  3, 1632  (Records 
of  the  High  Court  of  Commission  and  Star 
Chamber^.  The  author  of  the  "Jessey  Rec- 
ords" not  only  did  not  know  these  facts,  but 
calls  this  good  pastor's  wife  "Mr.  Jacob."  The 
records  of  the  Court  are  perfectly  clear  on  this 
point.  If  there  ever  was  a  more  stupidly  blund- 
ering document  than  this  so-called  "Jessey 
Records,"  unless  it  be  the  Gould  "Kiffln  Man- 
uscript," which  comes  from  the  same  quarter, 
I  yet  have  to  see  it.  The  author  of  the  "Jes- 
sey Record?"  knows  scarcely  one  fact  concern- 


45 


ing  Mr.  Jacob  and  his  tamily,  but  on  the  oth- 
er hand,  has  made  assertions  and  given  dates 
which  are  proved  incorrect.  If  these  Records 
were  the  actuaj  minutes  of  the  church,  not  one 
of  these  blunders  could  have  occurred.  But 
these  are  the  very  blunders  that  a  man  writing 
long  afterwards  without  the  original  records 
before  him  and  with  the  statements  of  modern 
historians  as  his  guide,  would  fall  into. 

The  next  statement  of  the  "  Jessey  Records" 
is  equally  false.    They  say : 

''After  his  Departure  hence  ye  Congregation 
remained  a  year  or  two  edifying  one  another 
in  ye  best  manner  they  could  according  to 
their  Gifts  given  to  them  from  above.  And 
then  at  length  John  Lathrop  sometimes  a 
Preacher  in  Kent,  joyned  to  ye  said  Congrega- 
tion ;  And  was  afterwards  chosen  and  Ordained 
a  Pastor  to  them,  a  Man  of  tender  heart  and  a 
humble  and  meek  Spirit  serving  the  Lord  in 
the  ministry  about  9  years  to  their  great  com- 
fort." 

The  statement  that  the  church  was  without 
a  pastor  "a  year  or  two"  cannot  possibly  be 
true.  If  Mr.  Lathrop  served  the  church  about 
9  years,  he  became  pastor  the  latter  portion  of 
1626.  But  we  have  already  seen  that  Mr. 
Jacob  left  the  church  as  pastor  in  1622.  At  the 
very  least  calculation  the  church  was  more 
than  three  years  without  a  pastor.  And  any 
one  who  is  familiar  with  church  records  knows 
that  "genuine"  (?)  church  records  would  not 
be  so  indefinite  about  important  matters  as  is 
this  document.  It  would  have  been  quite  nat- 
ural for  church  records  to  say  that  Pastor 
Jacob  resigned  upon  a  certain  day  named,  and 
Pastor  Lathrop  became  pastor  upon  a  certain 
date.  But  even  this  effort  to  be  indoflnite  is 
fatal  to  these  records,  for  at  any  calculation 
"a  year  or  two"  is  not  three  or  four  years. 

In  these  alleged  "Records,"  the  most  elab- 
orate account  is  given  of  the  arrest,  trial  and 


imprisonment  of  members  of  this  church.  The 
account  is  very  specific  and  enters  into  minute 
details.  Of  course,  if  these  were  truly  records 
of  this  church  they  would  be  accurate.  Their 
glaring  mistakes  prove  them  to  be  forgeries. 
After  much  searching  I  have  been  able  to  se- 
cure a  copy  of  the  original  court  proceedings 
in  the  Court  of  High  Commission  and  Star 
Chamber.  These  minutes  were  supposed  to 
be  lost,  as  they  were  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Calendar  of  State  Papers  nor  in  the  collection 
of  original  State  Papers  preserved  in  the  Rec- 
ord Office  in  Chancery  Lane,  London.  At 
length  I  located  them,  however,  in  the  Raw- 
linson  Manuscripts,  vol.  128,  Bodleian  Library, 
Oxford.  The  subsequent  proceedings  in  this 
celebrated  case,  as  they  are  presented,  may  be 
found  in  the  original  papers  in  the  Record  Of- 
fice. I  give  not  theories  nor  "ingenious" 
guesses,  but  the  actual  facts  in  the  case.  But 
these  facts  contradict  the  "  Jessey  Records"  in 
almost  every  particular,  and  show  how  utter- 
ly unreliable  they  are. 

Take  the  case  of  Humphrey  Barnett.  The  Jes- 
sey  Records  say  of  him ;  "1632.  The  2nd  month 
(called  Aprill)  ye  29th  Day,  the  Church  was 
seized  upon  by  Tomlinson,  ye  Bps.  Pursevant, 
that  ware  mett  in  ye  house  of  Hump :  Barnet, 
Brewer's  Clark  in  Black:  Fryers,  he  being  no 
member  or  hearing  abroad,  at  wch  time  18 
were  not  committed  but  scaped,  or  ware  not 
then  present.  About  42  ware  all  taken  &  their 
names  given  up,"  &c.  It  appears  from  this 
account  that  Humphrey  Barnett  was  not  ar- 
rested and  committed  to  prison.  And  yet 
this  is  directly  contradicted  by  the  Court  Rec- 
ords. He  was  the  very  first  man  to  appear  be- 
fore the  court.  The  court  record  reads  that 
"therefore  the  man  of  the  howse  wherein  they 
were  taken  was  first  called :  who  was  asked 
when  he  was  at  his  parish  church?" 

The  "  Jessey  Records"  affirm  that  those  ar- 


rested  were  put  in  various  prisons,  whereas  as 

SrSSn    'Th?uR*'^'^7,^^"  ^11  confined  in  one 
prison.     Ihe  "Eecords"   say:    "Several   vc-^vZ 

committed  to  the  Bps  Priso^n,  caM  the  Stw 

i-rison  in  Crow  a  merchants  house  ao-ain) 

&  thence  some  to  the  Clink,  some  to  ye  "gS- 

]^oZed1oZm^t'-'^"^^^'  "^  ^^^«  escaped  he 
joj  uea  to  them,  being  m  prison  together  "  &c 
It  s  singular  that  the  writer  of  th?s  documrnt 
did  not  know  the  Location  of  the  New  PrS 

Tht'^-f  "^"^P"^^"^  **^  1^^^^  a  blank  spacS' 
•n  ^^  *  ^®^y  suspicious  Circumstance  Tf 
will  be  noticed  that  the  t'jSsTy  Records'' 
mention  at  least  three  prisons  where  these 
?hinrV^'^.  confined:  The  Bishcms  Prison 
JSf  .^h""^  ^""^  *^^  Gathouse.  The  evidence  ?8 
that  they  were  all  confined  in  the  New  I?fson 

WeleTrl  t'^^^n'"'  '^^?'^"^  ^^  the^Gathouse.' 
vy  e  learn  this  from  another  trial  where  some 
other  heretics  taken  in  another  convIntiSe 
were  tried  on  the  14th  of  June  1632  Th! 
Bishop  of  London  directed  that  this  company 
be  "sent  two  and  two  to  other  prison^^S 
none  to  the  New  Prison,  because  ^the Te'epe? 
hath  let  some  of   the  principall  of    throC 

rSTshon'of^'^^P'/ H  ^^^  conclusion  of  the 
keener  nfiv.w  ^^"^erbury  was  that  since  the 
peeper  of  Isew  Prison  was  not  careful  enoup-h 

our'p?fsoSr' His°"'^  S^  scattered  inrvlri' 
ous  prisons.  His  words  are:  "Therefore  l^f 
these  men  be  put  2.  and  2.  in  several!  Sns-' 
Here,  then,  we  find  that  the  "Jessey  Records" 
are  wrong  again.  I  have  official  copies  of  the 
ffman?frt'C'?hr?^VH"  ^^^^^  ca^sel,  an^'i^ 
th^Tstfcompany'     "'^^'  company"  were 

Tfu^^^hr^^^^l^  ''Jessey  Records,"  say  of 
fh^^P^"^^^^  Bernard    and    some    others     that 

n'Sn  '""/n'^ih^  ^^^  ^^^^^  toth'echu?c1i' 
in  prison.       In    this    very  time   of    their  ro 
straint  ye  word  was  so  fa/r  from  bound   a/^J 
saints  so  farr  from  being  scared  from  ?he\Vay8 


48 

of  God,  that  even  then  many  ware  in  prison 
added  to  ye  church."  Bernard  was  of  this 
number.  But  the  facts, as  given  in  the  records 
of  the  court,  throw  a  very  differentlight  on  the 
matter.  He  is  tliere  represented  as  a  member 
of  this  conventicle,  and  his  name  immediately 
follows  tiiat  of  "John  Latroppe  the  minister." 
He  was  imprisoned  because  he  was  a  member 
of  this  church.  It  seems  a  pity  to  spoil  this 
very  pretty  story,  but  the  facts  are  against  it. 

Of  the  i)ersons  in  prison  the  "  Jessey  Cliurch 
Records"  say:  "Henry  Dod,  deceased  in  pris- 
on." Unfortunately  for  the  records,  that  was 
not  the  fact.  Henry  Dod,  did  not  die  in  pris- 
on, at  any  rate  he  did  not  die  at  this  time.  He 
was  tried  on  the  "3  Maij,  16.32,"  and  found 
guilty  and  imprisoned.  He  was  probably  one 
of  those  of  whose  escape  the  Bishop  of  London 
complained,  for  we  dud  that  on  the  26th  of 
November,  1633,  he  was  out  of  prison.  Bishop 
Lindsell,  of  Peterborough,  writes  to  Sir  John 
Lambe,  Dean  of  the  Marshes,  and  says  that 
he  hopes  he  has  conferred  with  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  about  Mr.  Dod  and  his  preach- 
ing heresy,  and  has  received  directions  what 
is  to  be  done  with  him  about  it  (Vol.  ccli.  Do- 
mestic— Charles  I.  Calendar  State  Papers).  So 
it  is  plain  that  the  "  Jessey  Records"are  wrong 
about  Henry  Dod's  dying  in  prison. 

Mr.  Jacob  is  announced  in  these  records  as 
one  of  the  men  who  was  arrested.  But  "Mr. 
Jacob"  was  not  a  man  at  all.  The  person  ar- 
rested and  tried,  as  I  find  from  the  Court  Rec- 
ords, was  a  woman,  and  her  name  was  Sara 
Jacob,  the  widow  of  the  late  pastor  of  the 
church,  Henry  Jacob.  The  writer  of  these 
"faithful  extracts"  (?)  did  not  know  that  Sara 
Jacob  was  still  in  London,  and  so  he  wrote 
the  "original  records"  (?)  to  suit  his  case  rath- 
er than  according  to  the  facts.  The  fraud  is 
not  pious. 

These   "Jessey   Church  Records"    say    that 


Sam  House,  Sister  House,"  were  arrested, 
and  leave  the  impression  that  they  were  man 
and  wife.  The  Court  Records,  however,  men- 
tion no  such  man,  and  as  to  "Sister  House," 
her  name  was  "Penmina  Howes,"  and  she  was 
"amaide."' 

The  "  Jessey  Church  Records"  say  that  "Mr. 
Sargent"  was  one  of  the  number  arrested  and 
imprisoned;  but  "Mr.  Sargent,"  according  to 
the  Court  Records,  was  a  woman,  and  her 
name  was  "Elizabeth  Sargeant." 
uJ^^J.'.'lf^^^^^^  Church  Records"  tell  us  that 
Mr  Wilson"  was  among  the  members  of  this 
church  arrested,  but  the  Court  Records  make 
It  clear  that  "Mr.  Wilson"  was  a  woman,  and 
her  name  was  "Susan  Wilson."  !!!!!!!!! 

A  great  deal  is  said  of  Mr.  P.  Barebone  in 
the  "Jessey  Records"    and    in    the    "Kiffln" 
Manuscript.      The    said    Barebones     is     one 
of     the    principal    heroes    of     the    amazing 
stories    related     in     these     documents,    and 
the     most     extravagant     claims    have    been 
put  forth  as  to  his   doings.    I  shall  return  to 
Barebones  at  anotlier  time  in  these  papers      I 
desire  now  only  to  point  out  a  reckless  state- 
ment concerning    him    made    in   the   "Jessey 
Records."    That  document  declares  that  "Mr. 
Barebones"  was  arrested  along  with  Lathroppe 
on   the  29th  day  of  April,  1632.    Mr.  P.  Bare- 
bones was  not  only  not  arrested  at  this  time 
but  was  receiving  honors  from  his  fellow-citi- 
zens.     He    was     admitted    Foreman    of    the 
Ijeather  Sellers  Company,  20th  Januarv,  1623- 
elected  a  Warden  of  the  Yoemaury,  6th  July' 
1630;   a  Liveryman,   13th  Oct.  1634;   and  third 
Warden,  16th   June,    1648    (Notes  &  Queries, 
3rd  Series,  Vol.  l,p.  211).    Notonlywas  he  not 
in  trouble  with   the  authorities,  but  on  Dec. 
31st,  1635,  he  was  paying  over  to   the  govern- 
ment ship  money  m  course  of  business  in  large 
sums.    He  likewise  was  using  in  his  business 
an  elaborate  seal  bearing  the  arms  of  one  of 


50 


the  nobles  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Vol.,  306, 
160.  I).  But  if  we  needed  any  thing  more  to  ex- 
plode this  absurd  story  of  tbe  ''Jessey  Rec- 
ords,"! need  only  to  say  that  the  Court  Records 
show  that  "Mr.  Barebones,"  who  was  arrested, 
was  a  woman,  and  that  her  given  name  was 
"Sara."!!!!!!  These  are  ''genuine  records" 
with  a  vengeance. 

V. 

The  following  persons  are  represented  by  the 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript  and  the  "Jessey  Church 
Records"  as  joining  a  cliurch  along  with  Sam. 
Eaton  in  1633,  Sept.  12:  Henry  Parker  &  wife, 
Widd  Fearne,  Mr.  Wilson,  Jo.  Milburne  and 
others.  This  could  not  be ,  for  the  very  earliest 
date  that  any  of  this  party  were  released  from 
jail  was  April  2i,  163-i,  or  some  seven  months 
la'er  than  the  alleged  event  described.  This 
is  about  as  nearly  correct  as  the  dates  in  these 
documents  ever  are.  Here  is  another  instance 
where  the  State  Papers  show  these  Gould  doc- 
uments to  be  a  fraud. 

The  "Jessey  Church  Records"  further  state: 
"1632.  Elizab.  Milburn,  about  26  committed 
ye  12th  of  ye  2nd  month  (called  May  12th)  be- 
ing ye  Lord's  Day."  The  records  of  the  court 
show  that  this  statement  is  not  true,  since 
Elizabeth  Milburn  was  in  court  upon  the  8th  of 
May,  and  was  tried  upon  that  day.  That  is 
to  say,  Mary  Milburn  was  present  in  court  and 
tried  four  days  before  the  "  Jessey  Records"  say 
she  was  arrested.  And  it  is  also  a  fact  May 
the  12th  was  not  the  Lord's  day,  but  Saturday. 
It  is  also  true  that  "genuine  records"  (?)  of 
that  date  would  not  have  used  the  apostroishe 
in  "Lord's  day,"  as  is  done  here  and  elsewhere, 
for  the  apostrophe  was  not  usedinthose  times. 
And  it  is  a  further  fact  that  a  contemporaneous 
document  would  not  have  called  this  church, 
which  was  not  over  sixteen  years  old,  an 
"antient  Church,"  as  the  "Jessey  Church  Rec- 


5i 


f  Jfo^i".'^^  '""i  ^-''^  P^^«^-  ^11  of  these  points  are 
fatal  to  a  claim  of  genuineness  for  these  docu! 

SeStfty.^^  ''^''^"'  '^"  ""'''''  concealed  ms 

r.^^^,- ?v^*^^°  figures  largely  in  the  "Jesspv 
Church  Becords"  and  in  the  -Kiffln"  Manu^ 
script.    These  documents    show  th?  grossest 

«f ?H  nTh?  ^^  ^'^  ^''^""'y^  ^^d  seyemf  thfngs 
said  of  him  are  impossible.    The  "  Jesse v  Eel- 

inXS^%'t,  KT'""^  statement  concern- 
ing mm.  1633.  There  haveing  been  much 
discussing  these  denying  truth^  of  ye  Parish 
Churches  &,  ye  Church  being  become  so  laJS 
yt  might  be  prejudicial,  thise  foUowinffdl! 
en7i?e^  Church  V'i^V*.^^^  ^^^^^^*  beIZe  tn 

t\^r  ch?rS  it  ^S^im^oVsUhTmtrve^s^ 

Se?t.^^2riS!v!r^^^^^  thei&peXr^S 

^^r-^^'^®^^y  Parker  &  wife 

Widd  Fearne  Marke  Luker 

Tr ^^.\^^^^^     ^r-  Wilson 

^^Yr^u^^^"^^        Thomas  Allen 

•^"^/m^'i^"^^  Arnold 


T?,-  i   m    5®  Joyned  Rich.  Blunt,  Tho.  Hubert 

Trfmbef  w'"  r^  ^''  W^f«  Katherine,  John 
Irimber,  Wm.  Jennings,  &  Sam  Eaton    Marv 

Greenway.    Mr.  Eaton  with  some  others  re 

cemng  a  further  baptism,  others  joyned  to 


"1638.    These  also  being  of  ve   samp    TnHo- 
ment  with  Sam  Eaton  &  desiring  to  depart!" 
not  being  censured,  our  interest  V  them  wat 
Sun^lth   Te^   %^y'\'''^^.'  "^   theifrhSfl 

iTo»|fh  ^^^s^^ft  ^-^^^-  - 

Mr.  Petie  Fenner       Wm.  Batty 

Tho""  wIZn  ¥/^-  ^11^^  (died  1639) 

Th« -T^^-ffi    M   ^r     Mrs.  Norwood." 

transactk)^      -^^^'^'^P^  "^^^  °^  this  last 
Lid.usacnon.         1633.     Sundry    of    ve    Chnmh 

thereof  Mr.  Jacob  &  Mr.  John   Lathrop   had 


52 

been  pastors,  being  dissatisfied  with  ye 
Churches  owning  of  English  Parishes  to  be 
true  Churclies  desired  dismission  &  joyned 
together  among  themselves,  as  Mr.  Henry 
Parker,  Mr.  Tho.  Shepard,  Mr.  Sam  Eaton, 
Marke  Luker  &  others  wth  whom  Joyned  Mr. 
W.  Kiffln. 

"1638.  Mr.  Thos.  Wilson,  Mr.  Pen,  &  H. 
Pen,  &  3  more  being  convinced  that  Baptism 
was  not  for  infants,  but  professed  Believers 
joyned  with  Mr.  Jo.  Spilsbury  ye  Churches  fa- 
vour being  desired  therein." 

There  is  scarcely  a  statement  in  the  above 
bill  of  particulars  which  is  according  to  the 
facts.  Besides,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  "Jes- 
sey  Church  Records"  and  the  "Kiffin"  Manu- 
script contradict  each  other  in  important  par- 
ticulars. If  we  had  no  other  evidence  the 
contradictory  nature  of  these  documents  would 
be  enough  to  show  that  we  could  not  trust 
them.  It  would  seem  from  the  accounts  as 
given  in  these  documents  that  Sam  Eaton 
spent  a  good  i3art  of  his  life  in  joining  various 
churches,  and  yet  it  is  certain  that  with  all  of 
the  details  given,  the  writer  of  these  docu- 
ments was  grossly  ignorant  of  the  most  im- 
portant events  in  the  life  of  Sam  Eaton.  For 
example,  neither  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  nor 
the  "Jessey  Church  Records"  make  mention 
of  the  fact  that  he  was  arrested  at  the  same 
time  Lathrop  was,  April  29, 16.'!2.  A  long  list 
of  others  was  mentioned,  but  so  prominent  a 
raan  as  Sam  Eaton  was  is  entirely  overlooked. 
Not  only  was  Sam  Eaton  arrested  April  2i),aud 
tried  May  3  of  the  same  year,  but  he  continued 
in  prison  until  April  24, 163-1,  or  a  period  of  two 
years.  He  was  released  from  prison  under  the 
very  same  bond  that  Lathrop  was  (C'denclar  of 
State  Papers,  Yol.  26l,fol.  1S2).  This  is  fatal  to 
the  "Jessey  Church  Records"  and  the"KifHn" 
Manuscript,  since  these  documents  represent 
him  as  free,  and  organizing  and  leading  in  in- 


53 

dependent  church  movements  in  1633.  At  the 
very  time  that  these  documents  represent  poor 
Sam  Eaton  as  doing  all  these  great  things,  he 
was  in  jail,  and  had  been  for  a  year,  and  con- 
tinued in  jail  for  a  whole  year  afterwards. 

The  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  also  makes  a  com- 
plete breakdown  in  speaking  of  the  church 
under  date  of  1633.  It  says  that  "Mr.  Jacob  & 
Mr.  John  Lathrop  had  been  pastors."  Why 
put  the  verb  in  the  past  tense,  for  Mr. 
Lathrop  was  pastor  at  that  very  time? 
Another  absurd  statement  is  made  in  botli 
of  these  documents,  that  the  division  of 
the  Jacob  church  in  1633  was  caused  by 
"being  dissatisfied  with  the  Churches  of 
English  Parishes  to  be  true  churches."  That 
reason  will  not  answer,  since  this  Jacob  cliurch 
had  existed  already  17  years  on  this  very  basis 
of  opposition  to  the  Parish  Churches,  and  Sam 
Eaton  had  certainly  been  for  more  than  a  year, 
and  perhaps  for  many  years,  a  member  of  the 
Jacob  church.  Can  any  reasonable  man  liave 
any  confidence  in  such  documents? 

These  alleged  "genuine  (?)  documents"  rep- 
resent that  on  June  8th,  1638,  Sam  Eaton  re- 
ceived "a  further  baptism,"  and  that  since  he 
had  been  convinced  that  infant  baptism  was 
wrong  he  joined  Mr.  Spilsbury's  church.  These 
statements  lack  only  one  important  element  to 
make  them  reliable — that  is,  they  are  not  true. 
The  "KifRn"  Manuscript  and  the  "  Jessey  Rec- 
ords" have  a  habit  of  always  giving  the  wrong 
date.  On  June  8th,  1638,  Sam  Eaton  was  again 
in  jail  and  never  came  out  alive.  He  was 
turned  out  on  bond  April  24th,  163-1,  on  condi- 
tion not  to  be  present  at  any  private  conven- 
ticle. He  did  not  keep  the  terms  of  his  bond, 
and  for  a  j)eriod  of  nearly  two  years  he  suc- 
ceeded in  hiding  from  the  officers.  But  on 
May  5, 1636,  he  was  arrested  and  confined  in 
jail.  The  entry  is:  "Samuel  Eaton  of  St. 
Giles  without  Criple  Gate,  London,  button- 


64 

maker"  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Vol,  324,  fol. 
13).  He  remained  in  jail  until  Aug.  31, 1639, 
when  he  died  and  was  buried  in  Bunhill 
Fields  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Vol.  427,  fol. 
107).  So  the  facts  are  squarely  against  the 
"Kiffin"Manuscriptandthe"Jessey  Beeords." 
•At  the  very  time  that  these  documents  repre- 
sent him  as  joining  Spilsbury's  church  he  was 
lu  jail,  and  had  been  there  for  two  years.  Such 
is  the  testimony  of  the  only  witnesses  to  the 
"1641"  theory. 

Still  again,  the  "Jessey  Records"  give  an- 
other account  of  an  arrest  in  which,  as  usual, 
Sam  Eaton  figured.  The  date  was  January, 
1637.     The  account  is  as  follows : 

"11th  Month  (Vulgarly  January)  ye  21st  day 
at  Queenith  (where  Mr.  Glover,  Mr.  Eaton, 
Mr.  Eldred  &  others  1637  ware  wtli  us)   after 

Exercise  was  done,  by  means  Mr. the 

overthwart  Neighbour,  Officers  and  others 
came,  at  last  both  ye  Sheriffs,  &  then  Veasey 
ye  Parsevant  who  took  ye  names ;  The  Lord 
gave  such  wisdom  in  their  carriage  yt  some  of 
their  opposers  afterwards  did  much  favour 
them  &  bail'd  them.  The  next  day  Veasey  the 
Pursevant  got  money  of  some  of  them,  &  so 
they  ware  dismissed,  4  ware  remitted  to  ye 
Poulter  Counter." 

Here  is  the  statement  that  Sam  Eaton  was 
arrested  upon  this  21fet  of  January,  1637,  and 
bailed  out.  This  is  flatly  contrary  to  the  facts 
of  the  case.  Mr.  Eaton  had  been  committed 
to  jail  on  the  5th  day  of  May,  1636,  and  hence 
was  at  that  moment  in  jail,  and  had  been  for 
nearly  a  year.  He  was  not  bailed  out,  but,  as 
we  have  seen,  he  died  in  jail  in  Aug.  1639.  The 
only  element  the  "Jessey  Records"  lack  of  be- 
ing authoritative  is  to  tell  the  truth.  And  the 
month  was  not  January,  but  February  (Life 
and  death  of  Mr.  Henry  Jessey,  1671,  B.  M.  1418. 
i.  16. 

Consider  the  facts  a  moment,  and  then  read 


65 

the  following  /Ves/i  statement :  "Is  it  possible 
that  he  is  the  same  Samuel  Eaton  who  became 
pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church  at  New 
Haven,  Conn.,  when  it  was  established  on  the 
22d  of  August,  1639,  (Dexter,  Congregational- 
ism, p.  413,  note  ;  cf.  p.  587,  note)  and  returning 
to  England  in  1640  tounded  the  Congregational 
Church  at  Duckingfleld  (Dexter,  p.  635,  note") 
(A  QiiesHonin  Baptist  Historij.p.S-i:).  Of  course 
not.  The  very  month  that  the  above  author 
had  Mr.  Eaton  going  to  New  England,  he  died 
and  was  buried.  It  will  never  do  to  disturb 
the  sleeping  ashes  of  Sam  Eaton  to  make  him 
pastor  of  a  Congregational  church  in  1640, 
when  he  died  in  1639.  A  theory  that  requires 
dead  men  to  be  living  and  living  men  to  be 
dead,  is  beyond  my  power  of  belief. 

I  speak  of  the  Crosby  "Kifiin"  and  the  Gould 
"Kiffin"  document  as  distinct  versions  of  the 
so-called  "KifRn"  Manuscript,  because  Crosby 
gives  "the  substance"  of  a  document  he  saw 
and  loaned  to  Neal,  but  which  has  perished, 
while  the  Gould  document  was  copied  by  Dr. 
Gould  in  1860,  and  is  the  only  edition  we  have 
extant. 

The  Crosby  "Kiffln"  declares  there  were 
"twenty  men  and  women,  with  divers  others," 
who  left  the  Jessey  church  in  1633 ;  the  Gould 
"Kiffln"  mentions  five  and  others,  while  the 
"Jessey  Church  Records"  give  19  names.  The 
list  differs  materially  in  the  three  documents. 
This  contradictory  evidence  cannot  be  received 
as  authoritative. 

The  lists  of  names  for  1638  do  not  correspond 
in  the  three  manuscripts.  Crosby's  "KiflBn" 
gives  two namesand"others;"Gould's"KifHn" 
gives  three  names  and  says  there  were  three 
others,  and  the  "Jessey  Church  Records"  give 
six  names,  and  these  six  do  not  include  some 
that  are  found  in  the  Gould  document.  There 
is  nothing  surprising  in  all  of  thirf,  for  this  is 


66 

quite  as  near  as  these  documents  usually  come 
to  agreeing  with  each  other. 

The  statements  in  regard  to  Mr.  Lathrop  in 
the  "Jessey  Church  Records"  areas  follows: 
"After  ye  space  of  about  2  years  of  the  suffer- 
ings and  patience  of  these  Saints,  they  were 
all  released  upon  Bail  (some  remaining  to  this 
day  as  Mr.  Jones  &c,  though  never  called  on) 
only  to  Mr.  Lathrop  and  Mr.  Grafton,  they  re- 
fused to  show  such  faviour,  they  were  to  re- 
main in  Prison  without  release. 

"At  last  there  being  no  hopes  yt  Mr.  Lathrop 
should  do  them  further  service  in  ye  church, 
he  having  many  motives  to  go  to  New  England 
if  it  might  be  granted.  After  the  death  of  his 
wife  he  earnestly  desiring  ye  Church  would  re- 
lease him  of  yt  office  wch  (to  his  grief)  he  could 
no  more  performe,and  that  he  might  have  their 
consent  to  goe  to  New  England,  after  serious 
consideration  had  about  it,  it  was  freely  grant- 
ed to  him. 

"Then  petition  being  made  that  he  might 
have  liberty  to  depart  out  of  ye  land,  he  was 
released  from  Prison,  1634  about  ye  4th  month 
(called  June),  and  about  30  of  the  members, 
who  desired  leave  and  permission  from  the 
Congregation  to  go  along  with  him,  had  it 
granted  to  them,  namely,"  «fec. 

Almost  all  the  particulars  mentioned  in  this 
extract  are  contrary  to  the  facts. 

1.  It  is  claimed  that  these  "saints"  were 
"all  released  upon  bail"  with  one  exception; 
"only  to  Mr.  Lathroi)  and  Mr.  Grafton,  they 
refused  to  show  such  faviour,  they  were  to  re- 
main in  prison  without  release."  But  the 
State  Pa^jers  give  a  very  different  account. 
After  a  pretty  diligent  search  through  the 
original  State  Papers,  I  have  been  unablfe  tc 
find  where  one  of  these  "Saints"  was  released 
before  Mr.  Lathrop,  much  less  "all"  of  them. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  would  seem  from  the 
entry     in     the     records     that     Mr.    Lathrop 


w 

played  the  baby  act,  while  at  a  later  date  some 
of  the  prisoners  refused  to  take  the  oath  and 
were  recommitted  to  prison.  The  facts  in  the 
case  are  the  very  reverse  of  the  statements  in 
the  "Jessey  Records." 

2.  "Only  to  Mr.  Lathrop  and  Mr.  Grafton 
they  refused  to  show  such  favor,"  and  they 
were  retained  in  prison.  That  statement  is  not 
true,  and  I  give  only  one  example  out  of  many. 
After  Lathrop  was  dismissed  on  June  12 
William  Granger  and  William  Batty,  two  of 
this  company,  "refused  to  take  oaths  or  to  an- 
swer articles  and  were  committed  to  the  Gate- 
house" {Calendar  of  State  Pavertf,  Vol:  261,  fol.  39) , 

3.  The  "Jessey  Records  say  that  Lathrop 
was  released  from  prison  "about  ye  4:th  month 
(called  June)."  The  State  Papers  show  that 
he  was  released  April  24th. 

4.  The  "Records"  make  the  impression  that 
he  went  to  America  immediately.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  he  hung  around  London  for  some 
months  until  the  magistrates  made  it  too  hot 
for  him.  On  Juno  19,  1634,  this  entry  was 
made  against  John  Lathrop;  "Bond  ordered 
to  be  certified,  and  he  to  be  attached  for  non- 
appearance" (Calendar  State  Papers,  Vol.  261, 
fol.  50).  He  did  not  leave  London  till  the  last 
of  August,  and  arrived  in  Boston,  Sept.  18, 
1684,  on  board  the  ship  Griffin. 

I  have  already  quoted  the  statement  from 
the  "Jessey  Records"  that  Sam  Eaton  and 
others  organized  a  church  out  of  Lathrop's 
church  in  1633,  and  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript 
declares  that  William  Kiffin  was  in  this  seces- 
sion in  1633.  This  could  not  have  been,  for 
William  KifiQn  did  not  join  Lathrop's  church 
till  1634,  and  he  is  known  to  have  continued  in 
this  church  till  he  joined  Spilsbury's  church 
in  1638.  This  date  of  1634,  when  Kiffin  joined 
Lathrop's  church,  is  undoubtedly  correct,  for 
in  the  account  which  Kiffin  left  of  his  own  life, 
and  which  was  used  by  Ivimey  in  the  prepara- 


08 

tion  of  the  Biography  of  Kiffln,  1634  is  the 
date  given  {Life  of  William  Kiffin, -p.  I'd).  And 
Waddington  in  his  Surrey  Congregatiunal 
History,  p.  21,  gives  the  same  date,  with  a  re- 
markable extract  from  Kiffln  himself  concern- 
ing the  annoyances  he  experienced  from  the 
persecutors.  Here,  then,  again,  in  an  impor- 
tant particular  these  "genuine  records"  (?)  are 
wrong.  The  Gould  "Kiffln"  Manuscript  makes 
William  Kiffln  secede  from  the  Lathrop 
church  before  ever  he  joined  that  church  and 
while  he  was  yet  an  Episcopalian.  The  Cros- 
by "Kiffln"  Manuscript,  however,  declares 
that  Kiffln  joined  Spilsbury's  church  in  1638. 
These  documents,  which  are  declared  to  be 
"identical,"  contradict  each  other  on  impor- 
tant points  of  fact,  and,  what  is  more  note- 
worthy, both  of  them  contradict  the  facts  in 
the  case.  Yet  it  is  on  the  sole  testimony  of 
such  documents  that  we  are  asked  to  believe 
the  Baptists  of  England  all  practiced  sprink- 
ling before  1641 !!!!!!!!!!! 

VI. 

It  is  absolutely  essential  to  a  full  under- 
standing of  this  subject  that  a  most  clear  and 
marked  distinction  be  continuously  main- 
tained between  the  various  documents  which 
have  been  indiscriminately  referred  to  as  the 
"Kiffln"  Manuscript,  or  the  "So-called  Kiffln 
Manuscript."  Certain  writers  have  classed 
as  "Kiffln"  Manuscript,  documents  drawn 
from  widely  different  sources.  These  docu- 
ments are  as  follows:  Crosby  gives  (Vol.  1,  pp. 
101-2)  the  substance  of  a  manuscript  which 
he  distinctly  declares  was  only  "said  to 
be  written  by  Mr.  William  Kiffln." 
Gould  gives  (pp.  cxxiii.,  cxxiv.)  a  quota- 
tion which  he  claims  to  be  the  original 
language  of  this  manuscript,  "said  to  be 
written  by  Mr.  William  Kiffln,"  of  which 
Crosoy  gives   the   substance.    Crosby   (Vol.  3, 


59 


p.  41)  makes  a  short  quotation  from  a  "manu- 
script" whose  authorship  he  does  not  mention; 
and  he  also  gives  (Vol.  1,  pp.  148,  149)  a  quota- 
tion of  some  length  from  what  he  says  is  an 
undoubted  manuscript  of  William  Kifltin. 

Even  if  Crosby  and  Gould  had  not  erected 
such  plain  and  unmistakable  signboards  to 
guard  the  student  against  error  in  regard  to 
these  various  documents,  it  would  seem  that 
the  very  nature  of  the  manuscripts  themselves 
would  be  sufficient  to  guard  against  any  con- 
fusion concerning  them.  I  give  below  in  one 
column  Crosby's  quotation  from  what  he  ac- 
cepted as  a  genuine  and  autlientic  manuscript 
of  William  Kifflu,  and  in  the  other  column  I 
give  so  much  of  the  Gould  manuscript  "said  to 
be  written  by  Mr.  William  Kiffin,"  as  purports 
to  contain  a  record  of  the  period  preceding  the 
year  1640: 


OKOSBY'S    ilANU  SCKIPT   OF 
WIIiLIAM    KIF- 
FIN. 

An.  Dom.  1633.  "There 
•was  a  congregat ion  of 
Protestant  Dissenter i  of 
the  i  n  depen  dent  Persua- 
sion In  London,  gathered 
In  the  year  1616,  where- 
of Mr.  Henry  Jacob  was  the 
first  pastor;  and  after  him 
succeeded  Mr.  John  LatJv- 
rop.  who  was  their  minis- 
ter at  this  time.  In  this 
society  sevei'al  persons 
finding  that  the  congrega- 
tions kept  not  to  their  first 
principles  of  separation, 
and  being  also  convinced 
that  baptism  was  not  to  be 
administered  to  infants, 
but  such  only  as  professed 
faith  in  Christ,  desired 
that  they  might  be  dis- 
missed from  that  commun- 
ion, and  allowed  to  form  a 
distinct  congregation  in 
such  order  as  was  most 
agreeable  to  their  own 
Sentiments 


GOULD'S   ANONYMOUS  KIF- 
FIN MANUSCRIPT  UP  TO 
THE  YEAR  1640. 

1633.  "Sundry  of  ye 
Church  thereof  Mr  Jacob 
and  Mr.  John  Lathrop  had 
been  Pastors.  Being  dis- 
satisfied with  ye  churches 
owning  of  English  Parish- 
es, to  be  true  churches  de- 
sired dismission  <fe  'oyned 
togeather  among  them- 
selves, as  Mr.  Henry  Park- 
er, Mr.  Tho.  Shepherd,  Mr. 
Sam  Eaton,  Mark  Luker  & 
others  wth  whom  ioyned 
Mr.  Wm.  Kiffln. 

1638.  "Mr.  Thomas  Wil- 
son, Mr.  Pen,  &  H.  Pen,  & 
3  more  being  convinced 
that  Baptism  was  not  for 
infants,  but  professed  Be- 
lievers j oyned  with  Mr.  Jo. 
Spilsbury  ye  churches  fa- 
vlour  being  desired  there- 
in." 


60 


Records  ol  that  Church. 
"The  church  considering 
that  they  were  now  grown 
very  numerous,  and  so 
more  than  could  In  these 
times  of  persecution  con- 
veniently meet  together. 
and  believing  also  that 
those  persons  acted  from  a 
principle  of  conscience, 
and  not  obstinacy,  agreed 
to  allow  them  f'e  liberty 
they  desired,  and  that  they 
should  be  constituted  a 
distinct  church;  which  was 
perform'd  the  12th  of  Scpf .. 
163^.  And  as  they  believed 
that  hnptiKmwa,s  not  right- 
ly administered  to  mfavt». 
so  they  look'd  upon  the 
haijtism  they  had  recelv'd 
in  that  age  as  Invalid: 
whereupon  most  or  all  of 
them  received  a  new  bap- 
tism. Their  minister  was 
Mr.  John  SpiJsbury.  What 
number  they  were  is  un- 
certain, because  in  the 
mentioning  of  the  names 
of  about  twenty  men  and 
women  it  is  added,  with 
divers  others. 

An  .  Dom  .  1638.  "In 
the  year  1638,  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Kiffln,  Mr.  Thomas 
Wilson  and  others,  being  of 
the  same  judgment,  were 
upon  their  request  dis- 
missed to  the  said  Mr. 
Spilbum'8  congregation. 

"In  the  year  1689  another 
congregation  of  Baptists 
was  formed,  whose  place  of 
meeting  was  in  CnUched — 
Fryars;  the  chief  promot- 
ers of  which  were  Mr. 
Green,  Mr.  Paul  Bobson  and 
Captain  Spencer.'''' 

Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  148-9. 

At  the  very  beginnin  we  are  struck  with 
the  contradiction  in  these  documents.  The 
Gould  document  contradicts  the  Crosby  docu- 
ment  in  a  most  important   particular:    The 


61 

Gould  document  declares  that  this  movement 
to  send  Blunt  to  Holland  all  occurred  among 
some  dissatisfied  persons  in  the  Jessey 
church.  It  was  a  one  church  movement.  The 
words  are  so  plain  that  there  can  be  no  mis- 
take. The  words  are:  "Sundry  of  ye  church 
thereof  Mr.  Jacob  &  Mr.  John  Lathrop  had 
been  pastors ;"  and  "the  church  became  two  by 
mutuall  consent  half  being  with  Mr.  P.  Bare- 
bone,"  &c.  But  the  Kiffin  document  accord- 
ing to  Crosby  affirms  that  there  were  a  num- 
ber of  Independent  churches  engaged  in 
this  enterprise.  The  words  are:  "Several 
sober  and  pious  persons  belonging  to  the 
Congregations  of  the  dissenters  about  Lon- 
don, were  convinced  that  believers  were  the  only 
proper  subjects  of  baptism,  and  that  it  ought  to 
be  administered  by  imnvrsion,  or  diijping  the 
whole  body  into  the  water."  A  more  contra- 
dictory statement  I  never  saw.  The  one  doc- 
ument declares  that  this  was  undertaken  by 
one  church,  the  other  as  positively  declares 
that  more  than  one  church  was  doing  this 
thing.  And  now  we  are  asked  to  believe  that 
these  documents  are  the  very  same.  Yet  this 
is  the  contradictory  trash  we  are  asked  to  ac- 
cept as  authoritative,  and  this  is  the  kind  of 
stuff  that  the  whole  1641  toeory  is  built  upon. 
The  most  casual  examination  of  these  man- 
uscripts would  show  that  they  are  not  the 
same ;  they  may  slightly  resemble  each  other, 
but  they  cannot  be  the  same.  The  document 
which  Crosby  claims  as  genuine  is  some  four 
times  longer  than  that  part  of  the  Gould  anony- 
mous document  which  covers  the  same  period, 
and  does  not  correspond  with  it  in  language  or 
facts.  All  the  Crosby  document  says  0^1639 
is  entirely  omitted  in  the  Gould  document. 
Yet  we  have  been  gravely  informed  that  this 
Gould  document  is  "identical  with"  that 
"used  by  Crosby  in  the  preparation  of  his  his- 
sory."    There  is  no  important  point  of  identity 


62 

between  the  two.  A  man  must  have  on  a  curi- 
ous pair  of  spectacles  who  can  find  identity  in 
tliese  two  extracts. 

Now  the  only  one  of  the  documents  which  I 
have  discussed  that  gives  any  support  what= 
ever  to  the  1641  theory  is  GouicVs  version  of  the 
anonymous  manuscript  ''said,"  by  some  un- 
known person,  "to  be  written  by  Mr.  William 
Kiffin;"and  the  only  words  of  that  manuscript 
which  afford  any  aid  and  comfort  to  the  said 
theory  is  the  entry  under  the  date  1640,  which 
immediately  follows  the  quotation  given 
above ;  and  the  only  words  in  this  1640  part  at 
all  pertinent  to  that  theory  are  the  now  famous 
words  in  regard  to  dipping,  "none  having  then 
so  practiced  in  England  to  professed  believers. " 
Thus  the  1641  theory  rests  upon  the  presence 
of  ten  words  in  an  anonymous  manuscript,  of 
which  the  earliest  extant  copy  belongs  to  the 
year  1860,  and  this  copy  is  itself  at  best ''.  mere 
copy  of  a  copy ! ! 

Now,  although  but  a  small  part  of  this 
anonymous  manuscript,  as  given  byGouid,is 
pertinent  to  the  1641  theory,  yet  if  an"  part 
of  the  manuscript  can  be  demonstrated  to 
be  false,  then  the  whole  mTist  be  discarded, 
for  a  genuine  contemporaneous  record  con- 
tains no  material  falsehoods.  False  in  one, 
false  in  all.  I  have  already  demonstrated 
that  much  of  this  "Kiffln"  Manuscript  cannot 
possibly  be  true,  and  much  more  is  con- 
tradictory and  absurd;  and  it  will  still 
further  be  shown  that  this  Manuscript 
is  a  fraud.  The  entry  for  the  year  1640  in 
Gould's  edition  of  this  anonymous  manuscript 
begins  as  follows:  "1640,  3d  Mo.  The  Church 
[whereof  Mr.  Jacob  and  Mr.  John  Lathrop  had 
been  Pastors],  became  two  by  mutual  consent, 
just  half  being  with  Mr.  P.  Barobone  and  ye 
other  halfe  with  Mr.  H.  Jessey.  Mr.  Rich'd 
Blunt  with  him  being  convinced  of  Baptism, 
yt  also  it  ought  to  be  by  dipping  ye  Body  into 


ye  Water,  resembling  Burial  and  riseing again, 
Col.  II.,  12;  Rom.  VI.,  4;"  and  then  asserts 
that  the  subject  baptized  should  be  a  professed 
believer.  Now  the  facts  are  that  neither  "Mr. 
P.  Barebones"  nor  ''Mr.  H.  Jessey"  did  any- 
thing of  the  sort.  The  narrative  says  that  Mr. 
Richard  Blunt  being  convinced  with  "him," 
went  to  Holland  for  immersion.  Being  3on- 
vinced  with  whom?  P.  Barebones?  Certain- 
ly not,  for  Barebones  did  not  become  a  Bap- 
tist till  somewhere  before  1654.  He  was  not  a 
Baptist  in  1641,  nor  was  he  convinced  of  the 
necessity  of  "immersion,"  nor  yet  of  "beleev- 
ers'  baptism,"  for  after  this  he  wrote  at  least 
three  books,  which  are  before  me,  in  which  he 
violently  assailed  both,  and  one  of  these  books 
bears  date  as  late  as  1645o  It  was  not  Praise- 
God  Barebones.  Was  it  Mr.  Jessey  that 
joined  in  with  Mr,  Blunt?  Certainly  not,  for 
Mr.  Jessey  did  not  believe  in  the  necessity  of 
dipping,  nor  was  he  convinced  of  the  necessity 
of  believers'  baptism  till  the  summer  of  1644, 
and  he  was  not  baptized  till  the  mid-summer 
of  1645,  or  five  years  after  this  date  (Life  of 
Jessey,  p.  83).  The  plain  conclusion  is  that 
this  anonymous  manuscript,  as  quoted  by 
Gould,  is  false,  for  neither  Barebones  nor 
Jessey  joined  in  1640  with  Blunt  to  go  to  Hoi- 
land  or  any  other  place  for  immersiono 

That  this  Jessey  church  divided,  "jusfc  half 
being  with  Mr.  P.  Barobone  and  ye  other  halfe 
with  Mr.  H.  Jessey"  on  the  subject  of  immer- 
sion, is  a  very  improbable  story=  Churchas 
are  not  accustomed  to  divide  on  mathematical 
lines  on  the  subject  of  immersion  or  any  other 
doctrine.  It  is  rather  queer,  when  one  somes 
to  think  about  it,  that  there  should  hava  been 
an  exact  division  of  this  church  on  such  lines. 
The  story  here  told  is  suspiciously  like  the  one 
related  by  Ivimey  in  his  History  of  the  Hub- 
bard church,  which  divided  eqally,  but  the 
reason  there  given  was  a  legitimate  one,  since 


that  church  was  so  large  that  it  was  in  danger 
of  being  apprehended,  and  it  divided  evenly 
for  security.  It  is  possible  that  the  writer  of 
the  Gould  document  got  these  two  churches 
mixed.  Where,  however,  the  compiler  got  this 
story  is  immaterial,  but  it  is  certain  that  it 
does  not  bear  the  marks  of  truth. 

We  now  come  to  the  passage — the  famous 
ten  words — in  which  so  mucli  reliance  has 
been  placed,  where  the  Gould  document  de- 
clares that  in  1640  none  in  England  had  practiced 
believers'  baptism  by  dipping.  It  will  be  seen 
from  the  paragraphs  above  that  I  have  shown 
that  the  first  statement  that  Jessey  was  con- 
vinced of  believers'  baptism  by  dippingis  false. 
One  falsehood  in  a  matter  of  fact  would  throw 
doubt  upon  the  whole.  But  I  attack  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  passage  itself.  It  id  radically 
different  from  the  account  as  quoted  by 
Crosby  from  his  copy  of  the  Manuscript,  "said 
to  be  written  by  Mr.  William  Kiflfln."  I  give 
these  accounts  as  they  occur  in  the  Gould 
"Kiffin"  and  the  Crosby  "Kiffin"  for  compari- 
son in  parallel  columns : 


GOTJLD  MANUSCRIPT, 

isao. 
1640.  3rd.  Mo:  The  Church 
became  two  by  ruutuall 
consent  half  being  wth  Mr. 
P.  Barebone,  &  ye  other 
halfe  with  Mr.  H.  .lessey. 
Mr.  Richard  Blunt  wth 
him  being  convinced  of 
Baptism  yt  also  It  ought 
to  be  by  dipping  in  ye  body 
into  ye  water,  resembling 
Burial  and  rising  again. 
2  Col.  2  12,  Rom.  6,  4  had 
sober  conference  about  in 
ye  Church,  &  then  with 
some  of  the  forenamed  who 
also  were  so  convinced; 
and  after  prayer  &  confer- 
ence about  their  so  enjoy- 
ing it,  none  having  then 
so  practiced  it  in  England 
to  professed   Believers,    & 


CROSBY'S   ACCOUNT  OF  THE 
MANUSCRIPT. 

Several  sober  and  pious 
persons  belonging  to  the 
Congregations  of  the  dis- 
senters about  London  were 
convinced  that  believers 
were  the  only  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism,  and  that 
it  ought  to  be  administered 
by  immersion  or  dipping 
the  whole  body  into  the 
water,  in  resemblance  of  a 
burial  and  resurrection  ac- 
cording to  Colos.  II.,  12, 
and  Rom.  VI.,  4.  That 
they  often  met  together  to 
pray  and  confer  about  this 
matter,  and  to  consult 
what  methods  they  should 
take  to  enjoy  this  ordi- 
nance in  its  primitive  pur- 
ity:   That  they  could  not 


hearing  that  some  In  and 
ye  Netherlands  had  so 
practiced  they  agreed  and 
sent  over  Mr.  Rich.  Blunt 
(who  understood  Dutch) 
•with  letters  of  Comenda- 
tlon,  and  who  was  kindly 
accepted  there,  and  re- 
turned with  letters  from 
them  Jo:  Batte  &  Teach- 
er there  and  from  that 
Church  to  such  as  sent  him. 

They  proceed  therein,  viz 
Those  Persons  that  ware 
persuaded  Baptism  should 
be  by  dipping  ye  body  had 
met  intwo  Companies,  and 
did  intend  so  to  meet  after 
this,  all  those  agreed  to 
proceed  alike  togeather 
And  then  manifesting  (not 
by  any  formal  Words  A 
Covenant)  Wch  word  was 
scrupled  by  some  of  them, 
but  by  mutual  desires  and 
agreements  each  Testified : 

Those  two  Companies  did 
set  apart  one  to  Baptize 
the  rest:  so  it  was  solemn- 
ly performed  by  them. 

Mr.  Blunt  baptized  Mr. 
Blacklock  yt  was  a  teacher 
amongst  them  and  Mr. 
Bluot  being  baptized,  he 
and  Mr.  Blacklock  bap- 
tized ye  rest  of  their  friends 
that  ware  so  minded,  and 
many  being  added  to 
them,  they  increased 
much. 


Upon  the  statement  made  in  this  Gould  doc- 
ument, that  believers'  immersion  was  unknown 
in  England  at  this  time  the  most  elaborate 
treatises  have  been  prepared,  and  the  most  ex- 
travagant theories  put  forth.  Spurgeon  states 
in  his  autobiography  that  when  he  himself 
made  a  profession  of  faith  in  England  in  this 
century,  he  did  not  know  that  any  one  in  Eng- 
land practiced  believers'  baptism  by  dipping. 
Accordingly,  even  if  this  Gould  document 
were  a  genuine  manuscript,  the  mere  fact  that 

5 


65 

be  satlsfyed  about  any  ad- 
ministrator in  England  to 
begin  this  practice;  be- 
cause tho'  some  in  this  na- 
tion rejected  the  baptism 
of  infants,  yet  they  had 
not  as  they  knew  of  reviv- 
ed the  ancient  custom  of 
immersion:  But  hearing 
that  some  in  the  Nethei-- 
lands  practiced  It,  they 
agreed  to  send  over  one 
Mr.  Richard  Blunt,  who 
understood  the  Dutch  lan- 
guage; that  he  went  ac- 
cordingly, carrying  letters 
of  recommendation  with 
him  and  was  kindly  i-e- 
ceived  both  by  the  church 
there  and  Mr.  John  Batten, 
their  teacher. 

That  upon  his  return  he 
baptized  Mr.  Bamuel 
Blacklock,  a  minister,  and 
these  two  baptized  the  rest 
of  their  company  [whose 
names  are  in  the  manu- 
script to  the  number  of 
flfty-threej. 

Crosby,   Vol.  I.,  pp.  101-2. 


its  prejudiced  author  did  not  know  any  thing 
about  the  Baptists  would  not  prove  that  they 
did  not  exist.  Genuine  Baptists  have  never 
been  much  given  to  self-advertising. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  this  "Kiffin" 
Manuscript  is  absolutely  untrustworthy,  and 
it  has  made  statements  in  almost  every  par- 
ticular which  cannot  be  depended  upon.  It 
will  also  be  seen,  by  consulting  the  parallel  col- 
umns above,  that  these  accounts  differ  in 
words,  spelling,  matter,  and  indeed  in  almost 
every  particular.  Both  of  these  accounts  can- 
not be  genuine.  One  or  the  other  is  a  fabrica- 
tion. Which  one  am  I  to  believe?  Shall  I 
accept  Crosby's  document  as  correct,  then  the 
passage  "none  haveing  then  so  practiced  it  in 
England  to  professed  Believers,"  is  left  out, 
for  it  is  not  in  the  Crosby  ••Kiffin"  Manuscript. 
That  passage  gone,  there  is  nothing  left  of  the 
elaborate  theory  which  has  been  built  on  those 
words.  The  rejection  of  the  Gould  document 
kills  the  1641  theory,  and  if  we  accept  the 
Gould  document,  we  have  a  still  worse  state  of 
affairs.  Then  it  follows  that  Crosby  in  quot- 
ing from  this  document  deliberately  falsified 
the  facts  to  suit  his  purposes,  and  left  out  the 
most  important  words  to  be  found  in  the  Man- 
■uscript.  Crosby  did  this,  too,  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  Pedobaptist 
historian,  Neal,  knew  all  about  it  and  had  ev- 
ery means  in  his  hands  to  expose  him,  for 
Crosby  had  loaned  this  very  Manuscript  to 
Neal,  and  Neal,  in  several  instances,  quotes 
from  it.  Besides,  Crosby  stands  above  re- 
proach in  his  honesty  and  integrity.  I  do  not 
believe  that  Crosby  wilfully  left  out  a  passage 
like  this.  It  must  also  be  taken  into  account 
that  this  Gould  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  is  an  un- 
authenticated  document,  and  that  no  man  can 
tell  from  whence  it  came  or  whither  it  went. 
The  oldest  extant  copy  was  made  less  than 
40  years  ago:  viz.,  1860.    A  man  must  have  a 


67 


stupendous  credulity  to  believe  in  the  authen- 
ticity of  this  Gould  document. 

I  once  again  call  attention  to  a  very  impor- 
tant fact,  that  the  opinion  expressed  on  dip- 
ping of  believers ,  as  set  forth  in  the  Gould  ' '  Kif - 
fin"  Manuscript,  was  the  peculiar  opinion  of 
the  compiler  of  the  thirty  papers  of  which  this 
manuscript  is  one.  This  writer, over  and  over 
again,  in  the  other  papers  of  this  series,  wove 
in  these  almost  identical  words  in  passages 
which  he  wrote  himself,  and  around  quota- 
tions from  other  authors  whose  words  would 
not  warrant  such  language.  The  reader  can 
draw  his  own  conclusions.  Crosby  had  a 
"Kiffln"  Manuscript  before  him,  but  it  did  not 
have  these  words  in  it.  This  unknown  writer 
had  these  words  as  a  pet  phrase.  This  un- 
known writer,  who  changed  every  author  he 
quoted,  leaves  a  "Kiffin"  Manuscript,  and 
these  words  are  in  his  copy.  How  did  these 
words  get  mto  this  copy?  I  repeat,  how  did 
these  words  get  into  this  document?  I  would 
also  repeat  that  this  document  from  which 
Gould  quotes  is  not  pretended  by  any  one  to 
be  the  original  manuscript,  but  is  at  best  the 
mere  copy  of  a  copy.  Thus  this  whole  1641  the- 
ory rests  upon  the  casual  presence  of  ten  words 
in  an  unauthenticated  and  remote  copy  of  an 
anonymous  manuscript,  when  these  words  are 
not  reported  by  Crosby  to  have  been  in  the 
copy  of  that  manuscript,  which  was  in- 
spected by  him  and  do  not  make  their  ap- 
pearance except  in  a  remote  and  unauthen- 
ticated copy.  With  these  facts  before  us,  and 
they  cannot  be  denied,  we  do  not  regard  this 
Gould  "Kiffin"  as  of  one  particle  of  value. 

But  let  us  consider  some  additional  facts. 
1  here  18  not  one  line  from  any  contempora- 
neous author  to  prove  that  Blunt  ever  went  to 
Holland;  there  is  not  one  contemporaneous 
author  who  indicates  that  he  ever  heard  tell 
of  Richard  Blunt  or  Samuel  Blacklock.    All 


we  know  of  these  men  is  found  in  this  so- 
called  "Kiffin"  Manuscript.  It  is  calculated 
to  stretch  a  man's  credulity  a  good  deal  to  be- 
lieve that  tliese  men  introduced  believers'  im- 
mersion into  England  in  1641,  and  yet  were 
never  heard  of  nor  mentioned  by  any  writer  of 
those  times.  There  is  no  proof  that  any  such 
men  ever  lived.  For  more  than  half  a  century 
there  is  not  a  reference  to  either  of  them.  If 
they  did  the  great  things  claimed  for  them, 
the  Baptists  were  incredibly  ungrateful  and 
unappreciative.  Edwards  does  indeed  refer  to 
a  Blount  who  was  an  Anabaptist,  but  his  giv- 
en name  is  not  mentioned,  and  tliere  is  no  cir- 
cumstance to  connect  him  with  the  alleged 
Richard  Blunt.  The  Blount  mentioned  by 
Edwards  was  a  General  Baptist,  and  not  a  Cal- 
vinistic  Baptist,  as  was  Jessey  and  the  rest, 
and  so  could  not  have  been  connected  with 
them  in  this  enterprise.  Nor  did  the  Blount 
mentioned  by  Edwards  go  to  Holland. 
The  first  reference  I  have  found  to  the 
Baptists  sending  to  Holland  for  baptism 
is  in  an  account  by  Hutchinson,  who  wrote 
in  1676,  thirty-five  years  after  1641,  and 
he  declares  that  the  point  of  the  trouble 
is  not  immersion,  but  the  adrdinistrator 
of  baptism.  Hutchinson  says:  "T/ie  (jreat 
objection  ^vas  the  want  of  an  administrator;  which, 
as  I  have  heard.,  was  removal  by  sending  cer- 
tain messengers  to  Holland,  whence  they  were 
supplied"  (A  Treatise  Concerning  the  Cov- 
enant and  Baptism  Dialogue-wise.  Epis- 
tle to  the  Reader.  London,  1676).  But  Hutch- 
inson does  not  mention  Blunt,  nor  does  he  ap- 
pear to  know  anything  about  him.  Neither 
Blunt  nor  Blacklock  signed  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  1643,  and  I  repeat  that  their  names 
are  not  found  in  any  Baptist  document,  nor  in 
any  other  kind  of  a  document  anywhere  near 
1641.  It  is  a  matter  incredible  that  a  man  of 
such  importance  should  have  been  mentioned 


by  no  one  of  his  contemporaries. 

Indeed,  the  original  story  was  not  that  Blunt 
■went  to  Holland  to  get  immersion,  but  that 
John  Spilsbury  went.  Crosby  gives  the  story 
in  these  words:  ''Mr.  Spilsbury,  who  was  false- 
ly reported  to  have  gone  over  to  Holland  to  re- 
ceive baptism  from  John  Smith,  declares  ex- 
pressly against  a  man  baptizing  himself,  and 
judges  it  to  be  far  from  any  rule  in  the  Gospel 
so  to  do;  but  observes,  that  where  there  is  a 
beginning,  some  one  must  be  first.  'And  be- 
cause,' says  he,  'some  make  it  such  an  error, 
and  so,  far  from  any  rule  or  example, for  a  man 
to  baptize  others, who  is  himself  unbaptized, and 
so  think  thereby  to  shut  up  the  ordinance  of  God 
such  a  strait,  that  none  can  come  by  it  but 
thro'  the  authority  of  the  Popedom  of  Borne;  let 
the  reader  consider  who  baptiz'd  John  the  Bap- 
tist before  he  baptized  others  and  if  no  man 
did,  then  whether  he  did  not  baptize  others,  he 
himself  being  unbaptized.  We  are  taught  by 
this  what  to  do  upon  like  occasions.' 

"'Further,'  says  he,  'I  fear  men  put  more 
tlian  is  of  right  due  to  it,  and  so  prefer  it  above 
the  church  and  all  other  ordinances  besides; 
for  they  can  assume  and  erect  a  church,  take 
and  cast  out  members,  elect  and  ordain  officers, 
and  administer  the  supjper,di,nd  all  a-new,  with- 
out any  looking  after  succession,  v^nj  further  than 
the  scriptures.  But  as  for  baptism  they  must 
have  that  successively  from  the  A2)0stles,  tho' 
it  comes  thro'  the  hands  of  pope  Joan.  What 
is  the  cause  of  this,  that  men  can  do  all  from 
the  word  but  only  baptismf 

"Now  is  it  probable  that  this  man  should  go 
over  sea  to  find  an  administator  of  baptism,  or 
receive  it  at  the  hands  of  one  who  baptized  him- 
self?'' (Crosby,  vol.  1,  p.  103). 

Here,  then,  is  the  original  story  that  this 
going  to  Holland  occurred  in  the  time  of  John 
Smith,  and  that  John  Spilhbury  was  the  man 
who    went.     This    is   flatly   contradicted    by 


70 

Crosby.  But  there  is  just  the  same  evidence 
for  this  as  that  Blunt  went  to  Holland :  name- 
ly, no  evidence  at  all. 

The  date  of  the  supposed  visit  ot  Blunt  to 
Holland  is  as  mythical  as  is  the  person  of 
Blunt.  A  Baptist  writer  who  published  a  His- 
tory of  the  Baptists,  suj)plementary  to  Neal's 
History  of  the  Puritans,  says  that  Blunt  went 
to  Holland  in  1608,  and  there  is  just  the  same 
amount  of  evidence  in  favor  of  that  date  as 
any  other,  viz. :  No  evidence  at  all.  Barclay 
says  Blunt  went  to  Holland  in  1633,  and  some 
recently  have  been  much  impressed  with  1640 
as  the  date. 

But  the  writer  who  has  had  more  to  say 
about  Blunt  than  any  other  has  named  three 
dates,  16i0,  1641  and  1644  as  the  time  when 
Blunt  went  to  Holland.  He  is  equally  cer- 
tain about  all  these  dates,  and  the  funny  thing 
is  that  he  adopts  both  1640  and  1641  as  the 
proper  date  in  the  same  book.  I  quote  the 
three  statements.  In  the  New  York  Independ- 
ent he  says:  '"But  the  mission  of  this  Mr.  Rich- 
ard Blount,  according  to  Neal  ('History  of  the 
Puritans,'  Vol.  111.,  173-4),  did  not  occur  until 
the  year  1644,  eleven  years  after  the  'new  bap- 
tism' was  received  by  the  Spilsbury  secession. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  rearion  anywhere  to 
question  the  correctness  of  the  date  here  given 
by  Neal;  and,  hence,  we  must  hold  that  the 
'new  baptism'  of  the  First  Particular  Baptist 
church  was  a  new  sprinkling." 

In  his  book  he  says:  "The  other  leading  item 
is  that  Mr.  Blunt  was  sent  to  Holland  in  1640 
to  obtain  immersion ;  that  he  went  to  John 
Batten,  well  known  as  a  teacher  among  the 
Collegian ts,  and,  receiving  the  rite  at  his 
hands,  returned  to  England"  (A  Question  in 
Baptist  History,  p.  89). 

In  the  same  book,  when  he  conceived  that 
he  needed  the  authority  of  Prof,  de  Hoop 
Scheflfer,the  '-incomparable  scholar,"  who  had 


meationed  his  researches  to  the  -'Royal  Acad- 
emy of  Scieuce,"  and  had  given  such  ''encour- 
agement for  an  humble  professor  across  the 
sea,"  he  names  1641  as  the  date.  His  words 
are:  "Professor  Scheflfer  affirms  that  this  inti- 
mate union  continued  until  the  year  16il  when 
Bichard  Blunt  went  to  Rhynsburg,  and  re- 
ceiving immersion  at  the  hands  of  John  Bat- 
ten, returned  to  England  and  imparted  it  to 
the  members  of  his  church." 

I  mention  this  to  show  the  utter  confusion 
into  which  those  fall  who  try  to  follow  this 
Gould  document;  and  in  this  very  point  the 
Gould  document  and  Crosby's  account  contra- 
dict each  other.  The  Gould  document  pos- 
itively gives  the  date  of  Blunt's  journey  to 
May,  1640;  whereas  Neal,  who  used  the  manu- 
script which  Crosby  quoted  from,  positively 
states  that  the  date  mentioned  is  1644.  Neal 
is  very  plain  on  this  point,  andsays  he  had 
the  manuscript  before  him  (Neal,  Vol.  3  nn 
173,174).  '^^ 

It  was  held  by  the  Independent  that  Barber 
was  the  "founder  of  immersion"  in  1641  among 
the  General  Baptists,  and  that  Blunt  founded 
immersion  among  the  Particular  Baptists  in 
1644.  Two  week  before  the  editorial  quoted 
above  appeared,  that  is  to  say  Oct.  21, 1880,  an 
editorial  appeared  in  the  Independent  setting 
forth  this  position,  and  the  editorial  of  Nov.  7 
was  written  to  enforce  this  position.  The  edi- 
torial says:  "We  see  no  reason  to  question  the 
accuracy  of  Neal  in  assigning  1644  as  the  date  of 
Mr.  Blount's  mission  to  Holland.  The  seem- 
ing discrepancy  which  Dr.  Burrage  points  out 
may  be  readily  explained  by  reference  to  the 
rivalry  of  the  two  parties  among  Baptists. 
Those  who  sent  Mr.  Blount  in  1644  would  not 
recognize,  and  hence  chose  to  ignore ,  the  im- 
mersion which  had  been  started  by  Barber  in 

It  is  thoref ore,  necessary, in  order  to  be  right 


72 

up  with  the  "new  discovery,"  "to  move  up  the 
date  to"  1644.  Of  course,  the  Baptist  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  of  1643  was  then  in  full  force,  and 
tliat  affirms  that  immersion  is  tlae  only  bap- 
tism, and  it  is  against  the  contention  of  the 
above  writer.  But  this  could  be  met,  as  an  ed- 
itorial in  the  same  Independent  did  answer  the 
same  objection  when  it  was  offered  to  the 
above  extract  taken  from  the  Independent.  The 
answer  was:  "High  Baptist  authority  declares 
that  the  Confession  of  the  Seven  Churches  in 
London  'was  first  put  forth  about  the  year 
1643,'  but  no  copy  of  the  edition  of  that  year 
has  been  recovered.  If  a  copy  could  be  recov- 
ered, it  would,  perhaps,  be  found  to  prescribe 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  instead  of  immersion. 
It  was  probably  not  until  1644  that  the  London 
Confession  decided  in  favor  of  imiifiersion." — 
Th".  Independent,  Jan.  19, 1882. 

Of  course,  nobody  is  going  to  believe  that 
the  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith  of  1643  was  a 
sprinkling  document,  and  that  the  very  same 
Confession,  signed  by  the  very  same  men,  pub- 
lished one  year  later  was  a  dipping  document. 
But  there  is  as  much  rea,5on  to  believe  that  all 
Baptists  of  1643  suddenly  changed  their  minds, 
and  from  all  practicing  sprinkling  ail  began 
to  i^ractice  immersion,  as  to  believe  that  all 
the  Baptists  of  1641  did  this.  Indeed,  if  we 
could  believe  all  ©f  these  authors.  Blunt  spent 
36  years  in  going  and  returning  from  Holland 
to  get  dipped,  and  in  all  his  sea  voyages  he 
never  crossed  a  man  who  cared  enough  about 
his  doings  to  make  a  record  of  his  exploits,  or 
ever  knew  that  such  a  man  lived.  And  yet 
this  is  the  only  evidence  that  supports  this  1641 
business ! 

We  have  already  seen  that  Jessey  was  con- 
vinced that  immersion  was  baptism,  and  was 
baptized  in  1645.  But  document  No.  4  says 
that  Blunt  was  convinced  only  the  niglit  be- 
fore Jessey  was.    The  rxact words  are:  "After 


Bome  time  all  these  in  ye  2nd  Row  were  satis- 
fyed  vide  in  their  scruple  and  judged  supra  yt 
such  disciples  as  are  gifted  to  teach  &  Evan- 
gelists may  also  Baptize  &c  &c  and  ware  bap- 
tized Some  before  H.  Jessey  and  ye  rest  of  ye 
Church  ware  convinced  against  Pedobaptism 
and  hence  desired  to  enjoy  it  where  they 
might,  &  joyned  also,  some  with  Bro.  Knollys, 
some  with  Bro.  Kiffiu,  thus  These 
B.  S.  Knollys,  B.  Ford, 

B.  S.  Wade,  B.  Potshall 

B.  Conver,  S.  Dormer, 

S.  Jane  Todderoy  S.  Pickford, 

S.  Eliza  Phillips,  S.  Reves, 

B.  Darel, 
B.  Blunt, 
"After  that  H.  Jessey,  was  convinced  also, 
the  next  morningearly  after  that  that  wch  had 
been  a  day  of  solemne  seeking  ye  Lord  in  fast- 
ing &  prayer  (That  infant  Baptism  ware  un- 
lawful and  if  we  should  be  further  baptised  &c, 
the  Lord  would  not  hide  it  from  us,  but  cause 
us  to  know  it)    First  H.  Jessey  was  convinced 
against  Pedo-Baptism  and  then  that  himselfe 
should  be  baptized  (notwithstand- 
1645  4  Mo     ing  many  conferences  wth  his  Hon- 
June  29        ored  Beloved  Brethren." 

The  weight,  then,  of  the  four  documents 
which  we  are  examining  is  against  1640  and  in 
favor  of  1644  as  the  time  that  Blunt  went  to 
Holland.  Let  us  see.  The  Jessey  Records 
and  document  No.  4  make  no  mention  of  Blunt 
and  his  Holland  performances.  This  is  very 
strange,  and  thus  the  negative  evidence  is 
against  this  matter,  since  the  Jessey  Records 
should,  if  genuine,  be  a  record  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  church.  The  Crosby  "Kiffln" 
Manuscript  sets  the  date  at  1644,  and  docu- 
ment No.  4  puts  the  date  of  Bluut's  joining  the 
Baptists  at  1644.  The  Gould  "Kiffln"  Manu- 
script declares  that  Jessey  was  convinced  of 
the  necessity  of  immersion  at  the   same  time 


Blunt  "WHS,  and  we  know  positively  that  Jes- 
se v  was  so  convinced  in  1644  and  baptized  in 
1645.  Tliat  leaves  the  Gould  "Kiffln"  Manu- 
script unsupported  in  its  date  of  1640,  and  even 
suspicion  is  cast  upon  its  statement  by  another 
statement  in  it.  Thus  the  weight  of  evidence 
is  all  toward  1644  in  these  four  documents.  I 
am  not  arguing  that  1644  is  the  date  when 
Blunt  went  to  Holland ;  I  have  no  evidence 
that  he  ever  went  to  Holland  at  all,  or  that 
there  was  ever  such  a  man  as  Richard  Blunt. 
I  am  simply  setting  forth  an  unanswerable  ar- 
gument to  the  effect  that  if  these  documents 
could  be  depended  upon  there  is  no  doubt  that 
the  date  that  Blunt  made  his  trip  to  Holland 
was  in  1644,  and  not  1640. 

VII. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  Gould  "KifRn" 
Manuscript  contradicts  Crosby's  citation  from 
the  Manuscript,  and  that  both  of  these  are 
contradicted  by  the  Jessey  Church  Records 
and  Document  number  4,  and  that  all  of  these 
documents  are  contradicted  by  facts  that  can- 
not be  called  in  question  or  set  aside.  I  am 
under  no  obligation  to  prove  that  the  Anabap- 
tists immersed.  As  Dr.  E.T.Winkler  declared 
in  the  Alabama  Baptist  in  1881,  when  he  was 
combatting  this  1641  theory:  "We  assume  that 
every  Anti-pedobaptist  of  those  ages  was  im- 
mersed, unless  the  contrary  is  shown  by  con- 
temporary records."  All  that  is  needed  is  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  immersion  was  the 
universal  practice  of  the  Anabaptists  in  Eng- 
land and  challenge  proof  that  they  ever  had 
any  other  practice.  Not  one  example  has  been 
cited  to  show  that  any  one  Anabaptist  prac- 
ticed sprinkling  in  England  before  or  since 
1641.  A  good  deal  of  theorizing  has  been 
engaged  in,  but  T  demand  the  name  of  just 
one  Anabaptist  who  ever  sprinkled  any 
candidate    for    baptism    in    England    before 


1641.  Till  this  is  done  there  is  no  ground  for 
any  demand  for  proof  that  they  immersed. 
All  admit  that  they  immersed  in  1643,  and 
there  is  no  proof  that  any  of  them  sprinkled  in 
1641.  The  man  who  affirms  it  must  prove  it. 
The  Gould  "Kiffln"  Manuscript  is  the  citadel 
of  the  1641  argument ;  since  that  falls  the  ar- 
gument falls  with  it.  Facts  must  be  produced, 
and  boasts  of  great  learning  are  no  substitute 
for  facts.  Facts,  hard  facts,  nothing  but  facts, 
will  weigh  in  this  matter.  I  have  shown  be- 
yond any  doubt  that  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript 
is  a  fraud,  and  that  the  much-relied-upon  ex- 
pression, "none  having  then  so  practiced  to 
professed  believers"  in  England  before  1641  is 
utterly  unworthy  of  credit.  While  not  under 
the  slightest  obligation  to  do  so,  I  shall  present 
some  decisive  proof  of  the  practice  of  immer- 
sion in  England  before  1641.  I  shall  present 
the  testimony  of  the  Episcopalians,  Cath- 
olics, Independents  or  Presbyterians,  and  of 
the  Baptists  themselves.  The  following  decla- 
ration sets  forth  the  claim  I  am  refuting:  "I 
have  often  declared  it  to  be  my  opinion  that 
the  immersion  of  adult  believers  was  a  lost 
art  in  England,  from  the  year  1509,  the  acces- 
sion of  Henry  VIII.,  to  the  year  1641,  follow- 
ing the  imprisonment  of  Archbishop  Laud" 
(Western  Reoobdeb,  July  9, 1896). 

We  begin  with  the  Episcopalians.  The  fol- 
lowing remarkable  statement  occurs  in  Wall's 
History  of  Infant  Baptism:  "So  (parallel  to 
the  rest  of  their  reformations)  they  reformed 
the  font  into  a  basin.  This  learned  Assembly 
could  not  remember  that  fonts  to  baptize  in 
had  been  always  used  by  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, long  before  the  beginning  of  popery,  and 
ever  since  churches  were  built ;  but  that  sprink- 
ling as  the  common  use  of  baptizingwas  really 
introduced  (in  France  first,  and  then  in  other 
popish  countries)  in  times  of  popery"  (Hist. 
Inft.  Bapt.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  403).    And  in  another 


{►lace  he  remarks :  "And  for  sprinkling',  proper- 
y  called,  it  seems  that  it  was  at  1645  just  then 
beginning,  and  used  by  very  few.  It  must 
have  begun  in  the  disorderly  times  of  1641" 
(Hist  of  Inf t.  Bapt. ,  Vol.  II. ,  p.  403) . 

Now  is  Wall  correct  in  that  statement? 
Were  the  Presbyterians  the  ones  who  reformed 
the  font  into  a  bason,  and  was  sprinkling  just 
beginning  in  1645,  having  begun  in  the  disor- 
derly times  of  1641?  My  recent  investigations 
thoroughly  confirm  these  statements.  It  is 
not  necessary  in  this  discussion  to  go  back 
further  than  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 
Gough,  a  learned  antiquarian  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, states  the  condition  of  things  in  England 
in  the  reign  of  this  queen.  He  quotes  the  orig- 
inal authorities  to  make  good  his  words.  He 
says:  "This  [immersion]  in  England  was  cus- 
tom, not  law,  for,  in  the  time  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, the  governors  of  the  Episcopal  church  in 
effect  expressly  prohibited  sprinkling,  forbid- 
ding the  use  of  basons  in  public  baptism.  'Last 
of  all  (the  church  wardens)  shall  see,  that  in 
every  church  there  be  a  holy  fonte,  not  a  bason, 
wherin  baptism  may  be  administered,  and  it 
be  kept  comely  and  cleane.'  'Item,  that  the 
font  be  not  removed ,  nor  that  the  curate  do  bap- 
tize in  parish  churches  in  any  basons,  nor  in  any 
other  form  than  is  already  prescribed.'  Sprink- 
ling, therefore,  was  not  allowed,  except  as  in 
the  church  of  Rome,  in  cases  of  necessity  at 
home"  (Archaeology,  vol.  10,  pp.  207,  208). 

Sprinkling  was,  therefore,  prohibited  in  the 
reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  was  only  per- 
mitted in  cases  of  necessity,  and  that  at  home. 
This  was  the  state  of  affairs  when  James  VI. 
of  Scotland  became  James  I., of  England,  on 
March  24, 1603.  A  font  of  gol^  had  been  pre- 
sented for  his  baptism  (Turner,  vol.  4,  p.  86, 
note).  Althougli  James  had  been  immersed, 
he  was  a  Scotchman.  Many  of  the  Scotch  di- 
vines had  gone  over  to  Geneva  and  returned  at 


77 

length  to  Scotland  greatly  impressed  with  the 
views  of  Calvin.  "These  Scotch  exiles,  who 
had  renounced  the  authority  of  the  pope,  im- 
plicitly acknowledged  the  autliority  of  Calvin ; 
and,  returning  to  their  own  country,  with 
Knox  at  their  head,  in  1559, established  sprink- 
ling in  Scotland"  (Edinborough  Ency.,  vol.  3, 
p.  236).  James  was  a  thorough  Scotchmian, 
and  some  of  the  Court  ladies  had  already  been 
mightily  taken  with  this  custom.  But  the 
church  of  England  not  only  did  not  receive 
sprinkling  for  baptism,  but  set  itself  officially 
against  it.  The  Church  of  England  legislated 
upon  the  question,  and  sprinkling  never  did 
prevail  in  England  until  the  distractions 
of  the  Civil  Wars  following  1641.  It  was 
adopted  by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  the 
Presbyterians,  the  party  of  Calvin,  in  1643,  but 
never  was  adopted  by  the  Church  of  England. 
Immersion  is  now,  theoretically  at  least,  the 
normal  form  of  baptism  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. So  far  from  sprinkling  being  the  ordi- 
nary custom  in  England  in  1641  it  only  was 
just  beginning. 

Let  the  reader  note  the  following  confirma- 
tions of  these  statements.  I  have  personally 
exainined  a  vast  number  of  the  Articles  of  Vis- 
itations of  the  Bishops  of  England  between 
1600  and  1645,  and  these  documents  fully  sus- 
tain Wall  in  his  statements.  The  very  year 
that  James  came  to  the  throne  the  clergy 
seemed  to  fear  the  influense  of  the  king,  and 
passed  a  most  significant  canon  in  favor  of 
dipping  and  against  sprinkling.  These  men 
went  so  far  as  to  get  the  king's  approval,  and 
it  was  published  by  "his  Majesties  authority." 
The  Bishop  of  London  was  the  President  of  the 
Convocation,  as  the  Archbishop  was  dead,  for 
the  Province  of  Canterbury.  In  these  "Con- 
stitvtions  and  Canons  Ecclesiasticall"  Canon 
LXXXI.  provides :  "A  Font  of  Stone  for  Baptism 
in  euer  Church.    According  to  a  former  consti- 


78 

tution,  too  much  neglected  in  many  places,  we 
appoint,  that  there  shall  be  a  Font  of  stone  in 
every  church,  &  Chappel,  where  Baptism  is  to 
be  ministered :  the  same  to  be  set  in  the  an- 
cient usual  places.  In  which  onely  Font,  the 
minister  shall  baptize  publickly"  (B.  M.  698. 
h.20  (17)). 

This  is  certainly  a  very  strong  immersion 
document,  and,  what  is  more  to  the  point,  it 
comes  from  the  highest  authority  in  the 
Church  of  England.  This  Convocation  was 
determined  that  sprinkling  should  not  prevail 
in  England,  and  it  did  not  prevail  till  the 
Presbyterians  came  "into  the  saddle."  The 
reader  will  bear'in  mind  that  the  font  was  for 
immersion  and  the  "bason"  for  sprinkling. 

The  Prayer  Book  of  James  I.,  1604,  called  the 
Hampton  Court  Book,  was  in  accord  with  these 
Canons.  We  read:  "Then  the  priest  shall 
take  the  child  in  his  hands,  and  naming  the 
child  shall  dip  it  in  the  water,  so  it  be  discreet- 
ly and  warily  done ;....  and  if  the  child  shall 
be  weak,  it  shall  suffice  to  pour  water  upon  it" 
(B.  M.  C.  25.  m.  11). 

The  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  went 
to  work  at  once  to  carry  out  the  instructions 
of  the  Convocation.  Their  action  proves  that 
they  were  unalterably  opposed  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  sprinkling.  At  the  risk  of  a  little  repe- 
tition I  shall  present  these  "Articles  to  be  En- 
quired of,"  since  they  are  very  important  in 
setting  forth  the  views  of  the  Episcopal 
church  of  those  timies,  and  I  am  not  aware 
that  any  reference  has  been  made  to  these 
Articles.  It  will  be  remembered  that  these 
Articles  are  the  official  orders  of  the  Bishops 
to  look  into  any  violations  of  the  Canon  law 
of  the  church,  and  a  direct  order  in  case  of 
such  refraction  to  remedy  it. 

The  Bishop  of  London  had  already  antici- 
pated the  Canon  quoted  above,  for  we  find  as 


79 

early  as  1601  he  had  taken  steps  in  that  direc- 
tion. In  his  Articles  of  Enquiry  concerning 
the  Church, number 5, he  says:  "Whether  your 
touts  or  baptisteries  be  removed  from  the  place 
where  they  were  wont  to  stand  or  whether  any 
persons,  leaving  the  vse  of  them,  do  christen 
or  baptize  in  basons  or  other  vessels,  not  ac- 
customably  vsed  in  the  church,  or  do  us^  any 
kind  of  lauor  with  a  remouable  bason,  or  haue 
taken  downe  the  oldo  &  vsuall  font  heretofore 
vsed  in  thp  parish"  (B.  M.  698.  g.  31). 

For  some  years  this  admonition  appeared  to 
be  sufficient  and  there  was  no  complaint,  but 
in  1618  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  his 
articles  concerning  the  Minister,  is  pleased  to 
ask:  "2.  Doth  he  Vse  the  sign  of  the  cross  in 
baptism,  or  baptize  in  any  Bason  or  other  ves- 
sel, and  not  in  the  usual  font,"  &c.  (B.  M. 
698.  h.20  (13)). 

The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  the  same  year  fol- 
lowed with  stringent  instructions.  In  the  fifth 
Article  Touching  the  Church  he  enquires: 
"Whether  haue  you  in  your  church  a  Font  of 
stone  set  in  the  ancient  Vsuall  place,"  &c. 
Then  in  Article  4,  Touching  the  Ministrie,  he 
enquires:  "Whether  the  minister  leaning  the 
vse  of  the  Font,  doe  christen  or  baptize  in  any 
Basons.  . .  And  whether  your  minister  in  the 
baptizing  of  children,  obserue  the  orders.  Rites 
and  ceremonies  appointed  in  the  booke  of 
Common  Prayer,  without  addition,  omission, 
or  innovation"  (B.  M.  1368.  d.  35).  This  is  a 
significant  statement,  since  the  minister  must 
follow  the  Prayer  Book  in  the  immersion,  and 
there  must  be  no  "addition,  omission,  or  inno- 
vation." 

The  Bishop  of  Norwich,  1619,  has  twelve  en- 
quiries touching  the  administration  of  the 
Sacraments.  He  is  quite  urgent  that  there 
shall  be  no  departures  in  his  Diocese  There 
follows  the  invariable  enquiry  concerning  Min- 
isters, "doth  he  euer  baptize  in  any  Bason  or 


other  thing  but  the  vsuall  Font"  (B.  M.  698.  h. 
20  (14)). 

The  Bishop  of  London,  1621,  in  his  Articles 
is  not  less  urgent  than  the  other  Bishops,  but 
he  also  gives  a  plain  intimation  that  there 
were  Baptists  in  his  Diocese.  So  he  adds  an 
additional  Article  to  his  other  enquires.  Con- 
cerning the  Clergy  he  enquires :  "36.  Wheth- 
er your  Minister  Baptize  any  Children  in  any 
Bason  or  other  vessell  then  in  the  ordinary 
Font,  being  placed  in  the  Church  or  doth  put 
any  Bason  into  it?" 

Concerning  the  Church  he  enquires:  "4. 
Whether  haue  you  in  your  Church  or  Chappell 
a  Font  of  Stone  set  up  in  the  ancient  vsuall 
place? 

"48.  Whether  any  doe  keepe  their  Children 
Vnbaptized  longer  then  is  conuent,  unlesse 
that  it  be  for  the  sicknesse  of  the  Child,  or 
other  vrgent  occasion?"  (B.  M.  5155.  c.  9). 

The  Bishop  of  London  in  1627  asked  the  very 
same  questions  in  the  same  language  (B.  M. 
700.  g.  17). 

The  Archbishop  of  York,  1633,  in  his  Articles 
to  be  Enquired  of  Touching  the  Church  says : 
"5.  Whether  have  you  in  your  Church,  a  font 
of  stone  for  baptism  set  in  the  ancient  usual 
place." 

And  on  Touching  the  Ministry:  "4.  Wheth- 
er any  minister  leaning  the  vse  of  the  Font, 
doe  in  your  Church  or  Chappell  christen  or 
baptize  in  any  Basons,  or  otlier  profane  ves- 
sels ;  or  whether  your  minister  doe  baptize  or 
christen  any  out  of  the  face  of  the  Church  & 
Congregation  without  special!  cause,  or  with- 
out Godfathers  or  Godmothers :  And  whether 
any  person  or  persons  be  admitted  to  answere 
as  Godfathers  and  Godmothers  at  the  christen- 
ing of  any  chiide,  except  he  or  she  haue  before 
received  the  holy  communion:  And  whether 
doth  your  minister  in  ye  baptizing  of  children, 
observe  ye  orders,   rites  and    ceremonies   ap- 


pointed  and  prescribed  in  the  booke  of  common 
prayer,  without  addition,  omission  or  other  in- 
novation" (B.  M.  6155.  c.  17).  It  is  quite  plain 
that  the  Archbishop  of  York  intended  that 
there  should  be  no  '"innovations,  additions  or 
omissions"  in  the  prescribed  ceremonies  of 
his  See.  Nothing  less  than  immersion  would 
satisfy  him. 

In  1636  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  speaks 
again.  He  enquires  in  his  articles:  ''3.  Wheth- 
er have  you  a  Font  of  Stone  in  your  Church  or 
Chappell,  and  the  same  set  in  the  ancient  vsu- 
all  place? 

"15.  Whether  your  minister  doe  publikely 
baptize  in  any  sort  of  vessell,  and  not  in  the 
Font  only"  (B.  M.  698.  h.  20.  (18) ). 

The  Bishop  of  Norwich  enquired,  1638,  con- 
cerning the  Church  :  "2.  Have  you  a  comely 
Font  of  Stone  with  a  cover,  set  in  the  ancient 
usuall  place  of  the  Church,  is  it  whole  and 
clean,"  &c.  (B  M.  698.  h.  20.  (20) ). 

The  Bishop  of  Exeter,  1638,  enquired:  "2. 
Whither. . .  .a  Font  of  Stone  set  in  the  ancient 
usuall  place  of  your  Church,  with  a  comely 
timber  covering,  and  a  lock  and  key,  there- 
imto,"  &c.  (B.  M.  698.  h.  20.  (19) ). 

The  Bishop  of  Winchester,  1639,  enquired 
touching  the  Church  :  "6.  Whether  you  have 
in  your  Church  a  Font  of  Stone,  set  in  the 
ancient  usuall  place"  (B.  M.  698.  h.  20.  (21) ). 

The  Bishop  of  London,  1640,  enquired:  "8. 
Have  you  in  your  Church  or  Chappell  a  font 
of  stone,  where  baptism  is  to  be  ministered, 
decently  made,  and  kept  as  it  ought  to  be?  Is 
the  same  set  in  the  Ancient  usuall  place  ap- 
pointed for  it,  and  doth  your  minister  publike- 
ly baptize  in  the  same  font  only?"  (B.  M.  6156. 
c.  26). 

The  Bishop  of  Lincoln  enquired  concerning 
the  Church:  "1.  Whether  have  you  in  your 
severall  churches  and  chappells. . .  .a  Font  of 

6 


62 

stoue  set  up  in  the  ancient  usuall  place"  (B. 
M.  E.  171  (24). 

This  activity  on  tlie  part  of  the  Bishops  put 
fonts  in  nearly  all  of  the  Church  houses  of  the 
Episcopalians  in  England,  and  vast  numbers 
of  tliese  fonts  and  baptisteries  may  be  seen  in 
these  churches  to  this  day.  Take,  for  an  ex- 
ample, the  little  city  of  Canterbury.  The 
Church  of  St.  George  the  Martyr  has  an  an- 
cient octagonal  font,  the  basin  being-  upheld 
by  eight  small  shafts  and  a  thick  center  one. 
The  Church  of  St.  Mary  Magdalene  has  a  fine 
old  Norman  octangular  fontsupported  by  a  cen- 
tre column.  The  Catholic  church  of  St.  Thom- 
as has  a  very  beautiful  baptistery,  and  its 
carved  oak  canopy  forms  one  of  the  most  no- 
ticeable features  in  tlie  building.  St.  Martin's 
church  was  tlie  scene  of  the  immersion  of  ten 
tliousand  Saxons  at  one  time.  It  contains  a 
font  well  jjreserved,  of  which  the  tradition  is 
that  in  it  King  Ethelbert  was  baptized — three 
feet  higli  surrounded  with  sculpture.  St. 
John's  Hospital  has  a  singularly-shaped  early 
font.  An  immense  baptistery  had  been  i^laced 
in  the  Cathedral,  and  the  building  remains  to 
tills  day.  It  is  a  circular  building  with  the 
roof  in  the  form  of  a  cupola ;  underneath  is  a 
vault  raised  on  stone  pillars,  from  the  center 
of  which  proceed  ribs  to  an  outer  circle  of  pil- 
lars. Tlie  JSTorman  arch  is  beautifully  orna- 
mented. 

But  now  remains  a  most  striking  fact. 
For  some  reason  this  baptistery  was  in 
ruins  in  1636,  and  no  font  was  found  in  the 
cathedral.  There  was  a  powerful  interest 
taken  in  immersion  at  this  moment,  and  it 
would  never  do  for  this  noted  Cathedral  to  be 
without  a  font  or  baptistery.  Bishop  Warner 
presented  the  Cathedral  with  a  font  in  1636, 
and  it  was  placed  in  the  Cathedral  with  great 
ceremonv  (The  Antiquity  of  Canterbury,  by 
William  Sumner.     London,  1640.    B.  M.  578.  f. 


17).  In  the  strife  which  followed  in  the  nation 
this  font  was  destroyed  in  1641 ,  and  was  re- 
built by  Bishop  Warner  in  1660.  There  is  a 
notice  which  follows  that  several  infants  and 
the  wives  of  two  officers  of  the  Cathedral  were 
immersed  in  it  from  1660  to  1663  (Archgeology, 
vol.  11,  pp.  146,  147.  It  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive that  a  font  or  baptistery  would  be 
placed  in  this  Cathedral  in  1636  and  again  in 
1660  if  immersion  was  not  practiced,  and  yet 
we  are  compelled  to  believe  this  if  this  1641 
sprinkling  theory  is  true. 

On  the  use  of  these  hundreds  of  fonts  and 
baptisteries  in  England  I  shall  let  two  of  the 
most  competent  authorities  speak.  F.  A.  Paley 
says:  "It  is,  however,  well  known  that  ancient 
fonts  were  made  large  enough  for  the  com- 
plete immersion  of  infants.  Exceptions  to  this 
all  but  universal  practice  are  very  rare ;  one  or 
two  instances  are  quoted  in  the  Archaeology, 

vol.11,  p.  123 The    violation    of    the  same 

principle,  arising  trom  the  unhappy  custom  of 
aspersion  now  prevalent  in  the  English  church , 
is  one  of  the  commonest  faults  of  modern 
usage"  (Illustrations  of  Baptismal  Fonts,  v. 
31.    B.  M.  1265.  c  7). 

Samuel  Carte,  the  Archseoxogist,  says  of  the 
Fonts  of  England:  "Give  me  leave  to  observe, 
that  antiently  at  least  the  font  was  large 
enough  to  admit  of  an  adult  person  being 
dipped  or  immersed  therein." 

I  am  sure  that  the  above  facts  sustain  all 
that  Wall  claimed  when  he  stated  that  sprink- 
ling only  began  in  1641  in  England,  and  made 
little  headway  till  1645.  The  Episcopalian 
authorities  and  divines  were  squarely  against 
it,  and  did  all  in  their  power  to  prevent  its 
practice  in  England.  These  facts  cannot  be 
controverted.  They  are  taken  from  the  orig- 
inal documents,  and  they  contain  the  acts  of 
the  Bishops.  Sprinkling  prevailed  onlv  when 
the  Presbyterians  came   into  power  in  Eng- 


84 

land.  Instead  of  immersion  being  out  of  prac- 
tice in  England  from  1600  to  1641 ,  it  was  well 
nigh  the  universal  practice.  It  shows  how  ut- 
terly unfounded  is  the  statement  that  there 
was  any  need  for  a  "revival"  of  immersion,  or 
a  new  "inventing"  of  immersion  in  England 
in  1641.  No  amount  of  words  or  evasions  can 
overthrow  these  facts.  These  facts  further 
show  that  the  "Kiffin'  Manuscript  could  not 
have  been  written  in  the  atmosphere  of  the 
England  of  1641,  and  is  therefore  of  much  later 
date. 

To  this  proposition  we  have  witnesses  who 
lived  and  thoroughly  understood  the  his- 
tory of  the  times  of  1641.  For  example,  Thom- 
as Blake,  writing  in  1645,  declares,  "I  have 
been  an  eye  witnesse  of  many  infants  dipped 
and  know  it  to  have  been  the  constant  prac- 
tise of  many  ministers  in  their  places,  for 
many  years  together"  (Infants  Baptieme  Freed 
from  Antichristianisme,  pp.  1,2.  B.  M.  279. 
(10)). 

Walter  Craddock  preached  a  sermon  before 
the  House  of  Commons  at  St.  Margaret's,  July 
21,  1646.  Among  other  things  he  said:  "There 
is  now  among  good  people  a  great  deal  of  strife 
about  baptism ;  as  for  divers  things,  so  for  the 
point  of  dipping,  though  in  some  places  in 
England  they  dip  altogether"  (p.  100). 

Daniel  Featley  is  also  a  good  witness.  In 
his  Clavis  Mystica,  wliicli  was  published  in 
1636,  he  says:  "Our  font  is  always  open,  or 
ready  to  be  opened,  and  the  minister  attends 
to  receive  the  children  of  the  faithful,  and  to 
dip  them  in  that  sacred  laver." 

William  Walker,  a  Pedobaptist,  who  wrote 
in  1678,  says:  "And  truly  as  the  general  cus- 
tom now  in  England  is  to  sprinkle,  so  in  the 
fore  end  of  this  centurie  the  general  custom 
was  to  dip"  (The  Doctrines  of  Baptisms,  p.  146). 

Sir  John  Floyer,  one  of  the  most  careful 
writers,  says:  "That  I  may  further  convince 


85 

all  of  my  countrymen  that  Ivimersion  in  Bap- 
tism was  very  lately  left  ofif  in  England,  I  will 
assure  them  that  there  are  yet  Persons  living 
who  were  so  wmiersed;  for  I  am  so  informed  by 
Mr.  BeiHsford,  minister  of  Stutton  in  Derbyshire, 
that  his  parents  Immersed  not  only  him  but  the 
rest  of  his  family  at  his  Baptism  (Hist,  of  Cold 
Bathing  p.  182.     London,  1722). 

Alexander  Balfour  says:  "Baptizing  infants 
by  dipping  them  in  fonts  was  practiced  in  the 
Church  of  England,  (except  in  cases  of  sick- 
ness or  weakness)  until  the  Directory  came 
out  in  the  year  1644,  which  forbade  the  carry- 
ing of  children  to  the  font"  (Anti  Peedo-Bai?- 
tism  Unveiled,  p.  240.    London.  1827). 

VIII. 

We  find  the  English  divines  between  1600 
and  1641  speaking  out  in  no  uncertain  words. 
The  Bishops  by  their  Articles  of  Visitation 
were  actively  opposing  the  innovation,  as 
sprinkling  was  called,  and  the  English  schol- 
ars were  sustaining  them  in  their  writings. 
In  the  light  of  these  Visitation  Articles  and 
the  facts  of  these  times  we  can  intelligently 
understand  the  writings  of  Rogers  and  the 
others  who  spoke  out  boldly.  These  men  were 
heroically  standing  against  the  incoming  inno- 
vation which  was  supi^orted  by  a  corrupt 
Court,  and  "the  love  of  novelty,  and  the  nice- 
ness  of  parents,  and  the  pretense  of  modesty." 
With  these  facts  in  mind,  read  and  interpret 
the  authors  which  I  now  present,  and  the  list 
can  be  largely  added  to. 

The  Greek  lexicons  used  in  England  in  the 
first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  were 
Scapula,  Stephens,  Mincseus  and  Leigh.  These 
all  define  baptizo  as  dipping  or  submerging.  I 
have  been  unable  to  find  a  single  Greek  lexicon 
before  1644  which  gives  sprinkle  as  a  definition 
of  baptizo,  and  the  few  that  have  given  this 
definition  since,  as  a  remote  definition,  appear 


to  have  been  under  the  same  influence  that 
shaped  the  course  of  the  Westminster  divines. 

Dr.  Joseph  Mede,  1586-1638,  was  a  very- 
learned  English  divine.  He  says:  "There  was 
no  such  thing  as  sprinkling  or  rantism  used  in 
baptism  in  the  Apostles'  days,  nor  many  ages 
after  them"  (Diatribe  on  Titus  iii.2). 

Henry  Greenwood  in  1628  published  "A  loy- 
f  vl  Tractate  of  the  most  blessed  Baptisme  tliat 
euer  was  solemnized."  It  is  printed  in  black 
letter.  When  I  first  read  it  I  was  led  to  think 
that  it  was  by  an  Anabaptist  preacher,  but 
after  further  examination  I  found  that  it  was 
of  the  Episcopal  church.  He  says  of  the  bap- 
tism of  Jesus:  'The  place  where  he  baptized 
Christ  was  in  the  Riuer  lordan.  *  *  *  A  dupli- 
cate Riuer,  so-called,  because  it  was  composed 
of  two  Fountaines,  the  one  called  Jo7%  the  other 
Dan,  and  tlierefore  the  river  hatli  this  name 
lordan:  In  which  Riuer  Naaman  was  washed 
and  cleansed  from  his  Leprosie,  2  Kings,  6.14; 
wliicli  Riuer  Eliah  and  Elisha  diuided  with 
their  cloake,  2  Kings,  28.13.  In  this  lordan 
did  lohn  baptize  our  Lord  and  Sauiour  lesvs 
Christ"  (pp.  7,8). 

Dr.  John  Mayer,  pastor  of  the  church  in  Rey- 
don,  in  Suffolk,  says:  "The  Lord  was  baptized, 
not  to  get  purity  to  himself e,  but  to  purge  the 
waters  for  us,  from  the  time  he  was  dipped  in 
the  waters,  the  waters  washed  tlie  sinnes  of 
all  men"  (A  Commentary  on  the  Four  Evan- 
gelists, Vol.  5,  p.  76.  B.M.  1010.  e.6.  A.D.  1631). 
And  on  Matt.  28:19:  "The  order  here  is  ob- 
served. First  the  Nations  are  taught,  and  then 
dipped  in  water"  (p.  883). 

Daniel  Rogers,  1638,  jjublished  A  Treatise  of 
the  two  Sacraments  of  the  Gospell,  Baptisme 
and  the  Supi^er  of  the  Lord.  He  was  an  Epis- 
copalian. He  says:  "Touching  what  I  have 
said  of  Sacramentall  dipping  to  explaine  my- 
self a  little  about  it;  I  would  not  be  under- 
stood as  if  scismatieally  I  would  instill  a  dis- 


taste  of  the  church  into  any  weake  minds,  by 
the  act  of  sprinkling  water  onely.  But  this  (un- 
der correction)  I  say:  That  it  ought  to  be  the 
churches  part  to  cleave  to  the  Institution,  es- 
pecially it  being  not  left  arbitrary  by  our 
church  to  the  discression  of  the  minister,  but 
required  to  dip  or  dive  the  Infant  more  or  lesse 
(except  in  cases  of  weaknesse),  for  which  al- 
lowance in  the  church  we  have  cause  to  be 
thankfull;  and  sutably  to  consider  that  he  be- 
trayes  the  church  (whose  officer  hee  is)  to  a  dis- 
ordered errour,  if  hee  cleaves  not  to  the  insti- 
tution; To  dippe  the  infant  in  water.  And  this 
I  do  so  averre,  as  thinking  it  exceeding  ma- 
teriall  to  the  ordinance,  and  no  sliglit  thing: 
yea,  which  both  Antiquity  (tliough  with  some 
addition  of  a  threefold  dipping:  for  the  pre- 
serving of  tlie  doctrine  of  the  impugned  Trin- 
ity entire)  constantly  and  without  exception 
of  countries  hot  or  cold,  witnessetli  unto:  and 
especially  tlie  constant  word  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  first  and  last,  approveth:  as  a  learned 
Ore ti que  upon  Matthew,  chap.  3,  verse  11,  hath 
noted,  that  the  Greeke  tongue  wants  not  words 
to  expresse  any  other  act  as  well  as  dipping,  if 
the  institution  could  beare  it"  (p.  77.  London, 
1633). 

It  is  a  very  significant  fact  that  Daniel  Rog- 
ers was  quoted  by  the  Baptists  of  1641  as  hav- 
ing upheld  their  opinion.  This  could  not  have 
been  if  tlie  Baptists  of  that  period  had  been  in 
tlie  practice  of  sprinkling. 

Stephen  Denson,  1634,  says:  '■'Bee  Baptized. 
The  word  translated  baptizing  doth  most  prop- 
erly signifie  dipping  over  head  and  eares,  and  in- 
deed this  was  the  most  usual  manner  of  bap- 
tizing in  the  primitive  church :  especially  in 
hotte  countries,  £<,nd  after  this  manner  was 
Christ  himselfe  baptized  by  Joh.  Mat.  S.16.  For 
there  is  sayd  of  him,  that  lohen  hee  was  baptized 
hee  roent  out  of  the  water;  Which  doth  imply  that 
in  his  baptizing  hee  went  under  the  water,  and 


thus  all  those  that  were  baptized  in  rivers  they 
were  not  sprinkled  but  dipped"  (The  Doctrine 
of  Both  Sacraments,  pp.  39,  40.    London,  1634). 

Edward  Elton,  1637,  says:  "First,  in  signe 
and  sacrament  only,  for  the  dipping  of  the 
party  baptized  in  the  water,  and  abiding  under 
the  water  for  a  time,  doth  represent  and  seale 
unto  us  the  buriall  of  Christ,  and  his  abiding 
in  the  grave ;  and  of  this  all  are  partakers  sac- 
ramentally"  (An  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  of 
Saint  Paul  to  the  Colossians,  p.  293.  London, 
1637). 

John  Selden,  1584-1664,  was  regarded  as  the 
most  learned  Englishman  of  his  time.  He 
says:  "The  Jews  took  the  baptism  wherein  the 
whole  body  was  not  baptized  to  be  void"  (De 
Jure  Nat.,  e.  2). 

Bishop  Taylor,  1613-1677, says :  "If  you  would 
attend  to  the  proper  signification  of  the  word, 
baptism  signifies  plunging  into  water,  or  dip- 
ping with  washing"  (Rule  of  Conscience,  I., 
3,e.4). 

These  citations  show  conclusively  that  the 
scholars  of  that  period  believed  in  immersion. 

OATHOLIOS. 

While  we  have  not  a  great  deal  of  evidence 
of  the  opinions  of  the  Catholics  of  England  in 
regard  to  dipping,  what  we  have  happens  to  be 
singularly  clear  and  interesting.  Thomas 
Hall,  in  a  bitter  attack  which  he  makes  on  a 
Baptist  preacher  by  the  name  of  Collier,  de- 
clares that  Anabaptism  is  "a  new  invention 
not  much  above  one  hundred  years  old."  And 
then  (the  date  is  1652)  he  declares  the  Cath- 
olics are  great  dippers  His  words  are:  "If 
dipping  be  true  baptizing,  then  some  amongst 
us  that  have  been  dipped  by  Popish  Prelatical 
Priests,  who  are  the  greatest  zealots  for  dip- 
ping, should  be  rightly  baptized.  The  Papists 
and  the  Anabaptists  like  Sampsons  Foxes,  their 
heads  look  and  lie  different  ways,  yet  they  are 


tied  together  by  the  tails  of  dipping"  (The  Col- 
lier in  liis  Colours,  p.  116). 

PRESBYTERIANS. 

There  had  been  brewing  in  England  for  a 
long  time  a  revolution,  and  it  came  with  the 
Civil  Wars  of  1641.  The  result  of  that  war  was 
not  only  the  overthrow  of  the  King,  but  it 
overthrew  the  Church  of  England  as  well.  The 
Presbyterians  took  charge  of  the  ecclesiastical 
affairs  of  the  kingdom.  They  set  out  to  reform 
everything.  The  Westminster  Assembly  con- 
vened and  put  forth  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  form  of  Church  Government  which 
bears  that  name.  One  of  the  things  they  "re- 
formed" was  baptism,  and  they  substituted 
sprinkling  for  immersion.  They  were  the  fol- 
lowers of  Calvin,  and  Calvin  must  be  their 
model.  The  Reformed  Churches  of  Calvin 
practiced  sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  so  must 
the  Reformed  Church  of  England.  They  took 
hold  of  the  matter  with  a  bold  hand,  and  at 
length  they  succeeded.  Thus  sprinkling, 
through  the  WestminsterlAssembly ,  triumphed 
in  England.  But  with  all  the  prestige  of  Cal- 
vin, even  among  the  Presbyterians,  it  was  not 
plain  sailing.  There  was  stubborn  opposition, 
and  when  the  vote  was  taken  for  the  exclusion 
of  dipping  there  was  a  tie  vote,  and  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  [Assembly  was  forced  to  cast  the 
deciding  vote.  This,  remember,  occurred 
among  the  Presbyterians,  who  were  the  avowed 
party  in  England  in  favor  of  sprinkling  for 
baptism.  If  the  Presbyterians  only  carried 
this  change  by  one  vote,  it  would  require  no 
vivid  imagination  to  portray  the  opposition  to 
sprinkling  among  the  Episcopalians,  Baptists 
and  others  who  were  avowedly  opposed  to  it. 
I  boldly  ask  for  any  proof  which  goes  to  show 
that  there  was  any  particular  sentiment  for 
sprinkling  in  England  outside  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  and  those  who  sympathized  with 


it  in  1641-46.  The  Westminster  Assembly  is 
responsible  for  the  introduction  of  sprinkling 
in  England. 

Perhaps  I  should  here  introduce  the  author- 
it7/  of  Lightfoot,  who  was  the  President  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly.  He  says:  "Then  we 
fell  upon  the  work  of  the  day,  whicli  was  about 
baptizing  'of  the  child,  whether  to  dip  him  or 
to  sprinkle.'  And  this  proposition,  'It  is  law- 
ful and  sufficient  to  besprinkle  the  child,'  had 
been  canvassed  before  our  adjourning,  and  was 
ready  now  to  vote ;  but  I  spake  against  it,  as 
being  very  unfit  to  vote;  that  it  is  lawful  to 
sprinkle  when  every  one  grants  it.  Where- 
upon it  was  fallen  upon,  sprinkling  being 
granted,  whether  dipi^ing  should  be  tolerated 
witii  it.  And  here  fell  we  upon  a  large  and 
long  discourse,  whether  dipping  were  essential, 
or  used  in  the  first  institution,  or  in  the  Jews' 
custom.  Mr.  Coleman  went  about,  in  a  large 
discourse,  to  prove  tbiik  to  be  dipping  overhead. 
Which  I  answered  at  large.  After  a  long  dis- 
pute it  was  at  last  put  to  the  question,  wheth- 
er the  Directory  sliould  run  thus,  'The  minis- 
ter shall  take  water,  and  sprinkle  or  pour  it 
with  his  liand  upon  the  face  or  forehead  of  the 
child;"  and  it  was  voted  so  indifferently,  that 
we  were  glad  to  count  names  twice ;  for  so 
many  were  so  unwilling  to  have  dipping  ex- 
cluded that  the  votes  came  to  an  equality 
within  one ;  for  the  one  side  were  24,  the  other 
25,  tlie  24  for  the  reserving  of  dipping  and  the 
25  against  it ;  and  there  grew  a  great  heat  upon 
it,  and  when  we  had  done  all,  we  concluded 
upon  nothing  in  it,  but  the  business  was  re- 
committed. 

"Aug.  8th.  But  as  to  the  dispute  itself  about 
dipping,  it  was  thought  safe  and  most  fit  to  let 
it  alone,  and  to  express  it  thus  in  our  Direc- 
tory: 'He  is  to  baptize  the  child  with 
water,  which,  for  the  manner  of  doing  is  not 
only  lawful,  but  also  sufficient,  and  most  ex- 


pedient  to  be  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  of  water 
on  the  face  of  the  child,  without  any  other 
ceremony.'  But  this  lost  a  great  deal  of  time 
about  the  wording  of  it"  (Works,  Vol.  XIII.,  p. 
299.     London,  1824). 

Sir  David  Brewster  is  regarded  as  high  au- 
thority. He  says:  "In  the  Assembly  of  Di- 
vines, held  at  Westminster  in  1643,  it  was 
keenly  debated  whether  immersion  or  sprink- 
ling should  be  adopted:  25  voted  for  sprinkling, 
and  24  for  immersion;  and  even  that  small  ma- 
jority was  obtained  at  the  earnest  request  of 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  had  acquired  great  influ- 
ence in  that  assembly"  (Edinburg  Encv.,  Vol. 
III.,  p.  236). 

All  this  took  place  two  years  after  the  al- 
leged "invention"  of  immersion  by  the  Bap- 
tists. This  action  of  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly was  followed  by  acts  of  Parliament  which 
fully  carries  out  the  contention  of  Wall  that 
sprinkling  began  in  England  "in  the  disorder- 
ly times  of  i641,"  and  that  in  1645  it  was  "used 
by  very  few."  The  Presbyterians,  when  they 
came  into  power,  determined  to  press  sprink- 
ling and  overthrow  immersion.  They  were  not 
satisfied  with  passing  an  ecclesiastical  law  to 
govern  the  chruch,  but  they  followed  it  by 
acts  of  Parliament  to  control  the  state.  These 
acts  of  Parliament  were  summed  up  by  the 
Rev.  J.  F.  Bliss  in  his  work  entitled,  '"Letters 
on  Christian  Baptism."  He  says:  "The  orig- 
inal law  of  1534  enforced  immersion,  and  those 
who  were  not  baptized  were  to  be  treated  as 
outlaws.  This  law  was  passed  when  the  Roman 
Catholic  church  was  abandoned  and  the  present 
Established  church  inaugurated  in  its  stead. 
However,  this  law  was  repealed  by  an  act  of 
Parliament  in  1644,  at  least  so'  much  of  the 
old  law  as  enforced  immersion,  and  they 
passed  an  act  enforcing  sprinkling  in  its  stead, 
and  left  the  original  penalty  annexed  to  sprink- 
ling.   After  this  those  who  were  not  sprinkled 


92 

were  to  be  treated  as  outlaws,  being  deprived 
of  the  inheritance  of  tlie  state,  the  right  of 
burial,  and,  in  short,  of  all  rights  to  other 
sprinkled  citizens  of  the  realm." 

On  another  page  the  same  writer  says.: 
*'After  1648  immersion  was  prohibited  and  for 
many  years  made  penal." 

Prof.  W.  T.  Moore,  Dean  of  the  Bible  College 
of  Missouri  and  editor  of  the  Christian  Review^ 
who  was  for  many  years  a  citizen  of  London, 
called  my  attention  to  the  above  extract  from 
Bliss,  and  then  made  the  following  remarks: 
"It  will  be  seen' that  from  1634  to  1644,  one  hun- 
dred and  ten  years,  immersion  was  enforced 
in  England  by  law,  and  after  1644  sprinkling 
was  enforced.  It  is  rather  remarkable  that 
only  one  year  before  this  repeal  of  immersion 
and  enforcement  of  sprinkling  by  Parliament, 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  1643,  by  a  vote  of 
25  to  24— a  naajority  of  one — laid  aside  immer- 
sion and  adopted  sprinkling,  and  this  was  rat- 
ified by  Parliament  the  succeeding  year." 

This  act  of  1644  enforcing  sprinkling,  was 
followed  by  one  in  1645  that  looked  toward  al- 
lowing no  parent  to  escape  sprinkling  the  new- 
born child.  One  provision  of  that  act  read: 
"There  shall  be  provided  at  the  charge  of  ev- 
ery parish  or  chaperly  in  the  realm  of  Eng- 
land and  dominion  of  Wales,  a  fair  register 
book  of  vellum,  to  be  kept  by  the  minister  and 
officers  of  the  church,  and  that  the  names  of 
all  children  baptized,  and  of  their  parents  and 
of  the  time  of  their  birth  and  baptizing,  shall 
be  written  and  set  down  by  the  minister 
therein." 

Thus  were  the  Presbyterians  carrying  out 
the  provisions  of  the  Westminster  Assembly 
with  a  high  hand.  The  "fair  register  book  of 
vellum"  was  a  silent  witness  against  every 
Baptist  in  the  land,  and  was  intended  to  over- 
throw the  practice  of  immersion  entirely.  But 
it  was  not  till  May  2, 1648,  that  the  gag  law  was 


93 

finally  passed.  By  that  time  those  in  the  prac- 
tice of  sprinkling  had  complete  control  of  the 
laws  of  the  land.  Hence  this  enactment  was 
made  by  the  Parliament:  "Whosoever  shall  say 
that  the  baptism  [sprinkling  it  had  then  be- 
come] of  infants  is  unlawful  and  void,  or  that 
such  persons  ought  to  be  baptized  again,  shall, 
upon  conviction,  by  the  oath  of  two  witnesses, 
or  by  his  own  confession,  be  ORDERED  to  re- 
nounce his  said  error,  in  the  public  congrega- 
tion of  the  parish  where  tlie  offence  was  com- 
mitted. And,  in  case  of  refusal,  he  shall  be 
committed  to  prison,  till  he  find  surities  that 
he  shall  not  publish  or  maintain  said  error  any 
more."  That  this  law  meant  the  suppression 
of  the  Baptists  and  immersion,  there  is  no 
doubt,  for  soon  after  four  hundred  Baptists 
were  crowded  into  Newgate  prison.  It  was, 
therefore,  only  in  1648  that  sprinkling  became 
the  exclusive  law  of  the  land,  and  immersion 
was  prohibited.  But  the  Episcopalians  never 
altered  their  Prayer  Book,  and  immersion  is 
the  law  of  the  Episcopal  church  at  this  mo- 
ment. It  will,  therefore,  be  seen  that  the 
Presbyterians  were  responsible  for  the  intro- 
duction of  sprinkling  in  England.  Sprinkling 
was  introduced  by  them  on  the  return  of  Knox 
and  his  party  from  Geneva  into  Scotland;  it 
was  advocated  later  by  the  Presbyterians  in 
England,  but  it  made  no  headway  till  the 
overthrow  of  Episcopacy  in  England,  and  the 
Presbyterians  had  come  into  power.  It  be- 
came under  them  an  ecclesiastical  law  in  1643, 
a  civil  law  in  1644,  and  an  exclusive  command 
in  1648.  Therefore,  Wall  was  undoubtedly 
right  when  he  said  sprinkling  owed  its  origin 
to  the  troublesome  times  of  the  civil  war.  A 
simple  statement  of  these  facts  are  enough  to 
overthrow  all  the  theories  which  have  ever 
been  "invented"  on  the  practice  of  sprinkling 
before  1641.  Again  we  are  reminded  that  an 
ounce  of  fact  is  worth  a  ton  of  fiction. 


94 

IX. 

I  cannot,  therefore,  believe  that  immersion 
was  a '4ost  art"  in  England  from  1509  to  1641. 
Here  is  an  absolute  demonstration  that  im- 
mersion prevailed  in  England  till  1641,  when 
sprinkling  began  to  be  practiced  by  a  few,  and 
under  the  authority  of  the  Presbyterians  it  be- 
came the  law  of  the  church  in  1643,  and 
through  their  influence  was  ratified  by  Parlia- 
ment in  1644.    The  case  is  made  out. 

As  we  all  know,  the  Baptists  had  been  ter- 
ribly persecuted  by  the  Episcopalians,  and 
their  sympathies  would  all  naturally  be  with 
the  Presbyterians  as  against  the  Episcoi)alians. 
If  the  Baptists  in  1641  deliberately  changed 
their  minds,  indorsing  immersion  views  more 
radical  than  the  EpiscoiDalians  and  against 
their  allies  who  had  gradually  come  to  substi- 
tute sprinkling  for  immersion,  and  at  the  very 
hour  of  triumph  for  their  affusion  views,  then 
for  perverseness  and  contrariness  there  is  no 
body  of  people  who  ever  lived  that  can  equal 
the  Baptists  of  1641.  It  is  also  remarkable 
that  not  one  Baptist  remained  who  did  not 
suddenly  change  his  mind,  and  not  one  who 
offered  a  word  of  protest.  The  Presbyterians 
were  equally  divided  on  the  subject  of  immer- 
sion, but  we  are  asked  to  believe  the  Baptists 
were  all  in  favor  of  sprinkling  till  1641,  then 
they  all  changed  their  minds,  and  in  1642  they 
all  favored  dipping,  and  all  of  them  submitted 
to  that  rite ! ! !  For  my  part,  that  is  the  most 
astounding  proposition  I  was  ever  asked  to  be- 
lieve. But  that  is  precisely  what  a  man  must 
believe  if  he  accepts  as  genuine  the  ''Kiffin" 
Manuscript  and  the  interpretations  put  upon 
it  by  these  Baptist  advocates. 

As  for  the  views  of  the  Baptists  on  the  sub- 
ject of  believers'  immersion,  we  have  an  excel- 
lent landmark.  The  Confession  of  1643  was 
undoubtedly  an   immersion  paper.     I  give  the 


95 

XL.  Article  of  the  "Confession  of  Faith  of 
those  Churches  which  are  commonly  (though 
falsely)  called  Anabaptists:" 

"That  the  way  and  manner  of  dispensing 
this  ordinance  is  dipping  or  plunging  the  body 
under  water;  it  being  a  signe,must  answer  the 
thing  signified,  which  is,  that  interest  the 
Saints  have  in  the  death,  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ:  and  that  as  certainly  as  the 
body  is  buried  under  water,  and  rises  again,  so 
certainly  shall  the  bodies  of  the  Saints  be 
raised  by  the  power  of  Christ  in  the  day  of  the 
resurrection,  to  reigne  with  Christ"  (p.  20). 

Tliere  is  a  note  appended  as  follows:  "The 
word  Baptizo  signifies  to  dip  or  plunge  yet  so 
as  convenient  garments  be  both  upon  the  ad- 
ministrator and  subject,  with  all  modesty." 

It  would,  perhaps,  be  impossible  to  state  im- 
mersion views  more  clearly  in  a  confession  of 
faith.  There  is  no  hint  of  any  change  of  views, 
but  the  document  throughout  presupposes  that 
immersion  had  all  along  been  their  practice. 
There  is  no  reference  to  a  change  of  views,  no 
evidence  of  any  lack  of  agreement,  as  there 
certainly  must  have  been  had  there  been  a 
change.  Certainly  there  would  have  been 
something  of  the  kind,  for  we  know  that  with 
all  the  influence  of  Calvin,  that  when  the  vote 
came  on  the  subject  rf  immersion  the  West- 
minster Assembly  was  equally  divided.  The 
very  fact  that  the  Baptists  were  unanimous, 
and  that  none  of  them  ever  raised  a  question, 
unmistakably  proves  that  immersion  was  pre- 
viously their  practice. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  there  were  two 
sorts  of  Baptists  in  England.  If  one  set  had 
adopted  immersion  in  advance  of  the  other, 
they  would  have  been  assailed  for  so  doing. 
The  absence  of  any  such  assailing  requires 
those  who  hold  the  1641  theory  to  believe  that 
these  two  separate  denominations  simultane- 
ously changed  their  practice  from  sprinkliiig 


to  immersion.  This  is  incredible.  These 
bodies  frequently  had  debates  on  various  sub- 
jects and  were  not  overly  friendly,  and  that 
the  priority  of  immersion  or  any  reference  to 
any  change  among  them  was  never  raised,  is 
proof  that  no  sucla  a  difference  ever  existed. 

Not  only  is  this  Confession  plain  on  the  sub- 
ject of  dipping  for  baptism,  but  it  is  equally 
plain  on  the  subject  of  the  administrator  of 
baptism.  The  makers  of  this  Confession  of 
1643  did  not  aflEirm  the  doctrine  of  church  suc- 
cession or  baptismal  succession.  The  view  of 
Spilsbury  prevailed,  and  was  put  into  this 
Confession.  Spilsbury  held  that  if  baptism 
were  lost,  that  any  disciple  could  begin  bap- 
tism by  administering  it  himself,  and  quoting 
the  example  of  John  the  Baptist  as  a  Scripture 
in  point.  None  of  the  signers  of  this 
Confession  avow  tl:iat  immersion  was  lost, 
but  they  do  affirm  that  it  is  not  necessary  to 
send  anywhere  for  baptism.  Baptism,  they 
declare,  may  be  begun  at  any  moment,  in  any 
place  where  there  are  believers.  Men  who  be- 
lieved this  and  put  it  in  their  Confession  of 
Faith  could  not  have  sent  to  Holland  only  one 
or  two  years  before  for  a  baptism  according  to 
church  succession  or  any  other  kind  of  succes- 
sion. It  would  have  been  a  queer  commentary 
on  the  Particular  Baptists  of  England  of  1643 
that  in  1641  they  sent  to  Holland  for  immer- 
sion to  be  in  line  of  church  succession,  intro- 
duced immersion  in  England  in  Jan.,  1642,  in 
that  theory  and  in  a  little  more  than  a  year  they 
declared  in  a  Confession  of  Faith  that  they  be- 
lieved in  nothing  of  the  sortl  If  the  XL.  ar- 
ticle, as  quoted  above  is  plain  on  dipping,  the 
XLI.  as  here  given  is  equally  plain  on  the  ad- 
ministrator of  baptism.  That  article  says: 
"The  person  designed  by  Christ  to  dispense 
baptism,  the  Scrijitures  holds  forth  to  be  a  dis- 
ciple; it  being  nowhere  tied  to  a  particular 
church  oflQcer,  or  person  extraordinarily  sent, 


97 

the  commission  injoining  the  administration, 
being  given  to  them  as  considered  disciples,  be- 
ing men  able  to  preach  the  Gospel."  This 
declaration  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  1643 
is  directly  opposed  to  the  statement  of  the 
Gould  "Kiffin"  Manuscript.  Which  am  I  to 
believe?  To  ask  the  question  is  to  answer  it. 
The  Confession  of  Faith  is  a  Baptist  docu- 
ment, genuine  and  an  honor  to  the  Baptists; 
the  Gould  Kiffin  Manuscript  is  a  fraud  and  ab- 
solutely untrustworthy.  The  Baptists  of  1641- 
4  did  not  have  an  agent  "extraordij^jarily 
sent"  to  Holland  for  immersion.  They  said 
they  did  not,  and  I  believe  them ;  the  fraud 
known  as  the  Gould  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  says 
they  did  have  Blunt  "extraordinarily  sent," 
and  hence  it  is  not  worthy  of  credence. 

When  we  remember  that  the  Baptists  were 
imprisoned  and  had  been  burned  at  the  stake 
in  England,  we  should  not  expect  much  evi- 
dence concerning  their  doings.  Mr.  Brewer, 
one  of  their  preachers,  was  confined  14  years 
and  only  released  in  1640,  and  almost  every  one 
of  their  preachers  had  been  in  prison.  They 
were  maligned  and  traduced.  They  did  not 
dare  to  keep  records,  for  a  discovery  that  they 
were  Baptists  was  equivalent  to  imprisonment. 
There  were  so  many  informers  they  did  not 
know  whom  to  trust,  and  yet  in  the  face  of  all 
these  difficulties  I  present  a  number  of  in- 
stances of  immersion  among  them  and  facts 
which  go  to  show  that  this  was  their  practice. 
Some  of  this  evidence  has  been  cited  before, 
but  it  is  needful  to  repeat  it  in  connection 
with  the  new  evidence  I  have  secured,  which 
illustrates  and  confirms  what  was  previously 
known. 

Thomas  Fuller,  the  old  English  church  his- 
torian, born  in  1609,  published  his  history  1666, 
and  consequently  lived  through  the  period  we 
are  investigating,  tells  us  that  the  Baptists  of 
1624  were  dippers.    His  words  are :    "A  match 

7 


being  now  made  up,  by  the  Lord  Cromwell's 
contrivance,  betwixt  King  Henry  and  Lady 
Anne  of  Cleves,  Dutchni«n  flocked  faster  than 
formerly  into  England,  Many  of  them  had 
active  souls;  so  that,  whilst  their  hands  were 
busied  about  their  manufactures,  their  heads 
were  also  beating  about  points  of  divinity. 
Hereof  they  had  many  rude  notions,  too  ig- 
norant to  manage  themselves  and  too  proud  to 
crave  the  direction  of  others.  Their  minds  had 
a  bye-stream  of  activity  more  than  what  suf- 
ficed to  drive  on  their  vocation ;  and  this  waste 
of  their  souls  they  employed  in  needless  spec- 
ulations, and  soon  after  began  to  broach  their 
strange  opinions,  being  branded  with  the  gen- 
eral name  of  Anabaptists.  These  Anabaptists, 
for  the  main,  are  but  'Donatists  new  dipped;' 
and  this  year  their  name  first  appears  in  our 
English  Chronicles ;  for  I  read  that  four  Ana- 
baptists, three  men  and  one  woman,  all  Dutch, 
bare  faggots  at  St.  Paul's  Cross,  Nov. 24th,  and 
three  days  after  a  man  and  a  woman  of  their 
sect  were  burned  in  Smithfleld"  (Church  His- 
tory of  Britain,  Vol.  II.,  p.  97). 

We  have  been  gravely  informed,  however, 
that  where  the  Anabaptists  are  called  "Don- 
atists  new  dipped"  it  does  not  mean  that  the 
Anabaptists  were  dij^pers.  What  else  it  could 
mean  I  confess  I  cannot  understand.  But  for- 
tunately we  have  an  English  writer  who  lived 
only  a  short  distance  from  Fuller,  and  his 
book,  "The  Anabaptists  Routed,"  was  pub- 
lished only  one  year  before  Fuller's  History, 
1655,  and  he  uses  much  the  same  expression 
that  Fuller  did,  and  he  undoubtedly  under- 
stood the  Anabaptists  to  be  dippers.  If  the 
Anabaptists  had  been  in  the  practice  of  sprink- 
ling before  1641,  Fuller  was  exceedingly  unfor- 
tunate in  his  expression  when  he  called  them 
"Donatists  new  dipped."  But  Reading 
the  author  mentioned  above  puts  that 
at    rest    when    he      says:      ^'- Ayiabaptists    not 


99 

only  deny  believers'  children  baptism,  as  the 
Pelagians  and  Donatists  did  of  old,  but  affirm, 
That  dipping  the  whole  body  under  water  is  so 
necessary,  that  without  it  none  are  truly  bap- 
tized (as  hath  been  skid)"  (pp.  171, 172). 

It  would  ai^pear  that  the  objections  of  the 
advocates  of  the  1641  theory  are  always  unfor- 
tunate as  there  happens  to  be  a  contemporary 
author  who  always  refutes  their  views.  The 
trouble  with  the  1641  theory  is  its  utter  lack  of 
facts  for  its  support. 

In  1551  William  Turner,  "Doctor  of  Physick," 
"devysed"  "A  Preservative  or  triacle,  agaynst 
the  poyson  of  Pelagius,  lately  renued,  & 
Styrred  up  agayn,  by  the  furious  secte  of  the 
Anabaptistes."  This  book  undoubtedly  set- 
tles the  question  that  the  Anabaptists  of  Eng- 
land practiced  immersion.  He  repeatedly  calls 
them  Catabaptists  (see  pp.  19,  27,  28,  49)  in  his 
day.  It  is  claimed  that  Catabaptist  does  not 
mean  an  immersionist,  but  an  opposer  of  bap- 
tism. The  fact  is,  it  was  used  in  both  senses. 
These  Baptists  practiced  immersion,  and  by 
immersing  those  who  had  been  christened  in 
infancy  they  were  regarded  as  opposing  and 
despising  baptism.  (See  Liddell  &  Scott  in 
loco).  But  my  argument  does  not  rest  upon 
the  meaning  of  this  word,  for  Turner  uses  the 
word  dip  in  reference  to  these  Anabaptists. 
The  Anabaptist  in  making  his  argument  for 
believers'  immersion  is  represented  as  saying: 
"That  such  a  lyke  costome  was  once  in  our 
most  holye  relygyon,  as  was  in  colleges  and  in 
orders  of  relygyon,  wher  as  none  were  ad- 
mitted, before  they  had  a  year  of  probation, 
wher  unto  ye  put  this  that  they  that  came 
to  be  baptized,  demanded,  and  desyred  to  be 
received  to  fellow  ship  of  the  Christians  after 
dewe  proofe  of  unfayned  repentance,  and 
thereby  were  called  competentes.  Yonge  men, 
and  wymen  requyrynge  baptysme :  and  then 
were   taught  the   principles  of    the   Christian 


faith  and  were  fyrst  called  Catechumeai.  And 
after  those  principles  learned,  were  upon  cer- 
tayne  solemnedayes.at  two  tymes  of  the  yeare 
approved,  therefore  baptysed:  which  was  upon 
Easter  even,  and  Whit  Sunday  even:  promys- 
yng  for  themselves  the  observance  of  Gods 
law,  with  the  renouncyng  of  the  devell  and  the 
worlde  in  theys  owne  person,  without  God- 
father or  God-mother,  seven  score  yeares 
longe:  tyll  Ignius,  Byshop  of  Rome  ordered  to 
baptyse  an  infante,  a  god-father  and  god- 
mother answeryng  for  hym. 

"Where  as  ye  say  the  lyke  maner  was  in  our 
most  holy  religion,  as  the  scolers  and  religious 
men  had:  that  none  should  be  admitted,  until 
they  had  been  proved  a  yeare,  and  first  called 
competentes,  and  then  catechumeni.  I  mar- 
vayl  what  religion  ye  meane  of:  whether  ye 
meane  of  the  Popes  religion,  or  Christes  relig- 
ion, or  of  the  Catabaptistes  relygion,  which  is 
your  religion  indede"  (pp.  6,7). 

There  are  two  very  significant  statements  in 
these  passages:  (i)  The  Anabaptist  quotes 
against  his  opponent  the  well-known  practice 
of  immersing  on  the  two  days  of  Easter  and 
Whit  Sunday  (Schaff's  Hist. Christian Churcl I, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  262).  And  (2)  he  says  of  the  Ana- 
baptist "of  the  Catabaptistes  [dippers]  relig- 
ion, which  is  your  religion  indede."  This 
shows  that  they  were  certainly  dippers. 

The  following  is  conclusive : 

"And  because  baptism  is  a  passive  sacra- 
ment, &  no  man  can  baptise  himself e,  but  is 
baptised  of  another:  &  childes  may  be  as  wel 
dipped  in  to  the  water  in  ye  name  of  Christ 
(which  is  the  outward  baptysm  and  as  mycheas 
one  man  can  gyve  another)  even  as  olde  folke : 
and  when  as  they  have  the  promise  of  salva- 
tion, as  well  as  olde  folkes  &  can  receive  the 
signe  of  the  same  as  wel :  there  is  no  cause  why 
that  the  baptyme  of  childes  should  be  differed" 
(pp.  39,40). 


Here  he  says  that  the  "olde  folks"  that  the 
Anabaptist  baptized  are  dipped.  This  is  cer- 
tainly sufficient. 

The  following  are  additional  testimonies  to 
the  practice  of  immersion  among  the  Baptists 
of  England  before  1641 : 

The  Rev.  John  Man,  Merton  College, Oxford, 
in  1578  published  in  English  a  translation  and 
adaptation  of  the  "Commonplaces  of  the 
Christian  Religion,"  by  Wolfganus  Musculus. 

Man  says:  "The  word  baptisme  cometh  of 
the  Greek,  and  is  as  much  as  to  say  in  English, 
or  dipping  or  drowning  in." 

He  knows  no  baptism  but  immersion.  He 
never  intimates  that  baptism  could  be  per- 
formed in  any  other  manner.  Tlien  he  goes  on 
to  say  that  the  Anabaptists  had  no  excuse  "to 
dippe"  twice  since  the  candidate  had  already 
been  dipped.  He  argues  that  the  re-baptism 
in  Acts  was  no  excuse  for  the  Anabaptists  to 
"dippe  twice."  He  continues:  "But  some 
man  will  object.  If  the  baptism  of  John  and 
the  baptism  of  Christ  be  all  one,  then  the  apos- 
tle had  no  reason  to  baptize  the  twelve  dis- 
ciples in  the  manner  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  who 
were  baptized  before  of  John.  For  what  pur- 
pose was  it  to  dippe  them  twice  in  one  bap- 
tisme? Did  not  soine  of  the  fathers,  and  the 
Anabaptists  of  our  dayes,  take  the  foundation 
of  their  baptizing  of  this"  (p.  678).  Then  he 
argues  that  the  Anabaptists  and  the  Donatists 
did  wrong.  In  washing  "them  again  which 
have  been  once  washed  in  the  same  sacra- 
ment." A  plainer  account  could  not  be  given 
or  words  more  direct.  Here  is  an  author  writ- 
ing 63  years  before  1641  who  declares  that  the 
Anabaptists  were  in  the  practice  of  dipping. 
The  only  blame  he  has  for  them  is  that  they 
"dippe  twice"  instead  of  once:  That  is,  the 
Anabaptists  re-dipped  those  who  had  been 
dipped  in  infancy. 


102 

X. 

In  the  first  edition  of  "Did  They  Dip?"  the 
following  statement  was  made:  "The  E,ev. 
John  Fox,  tlie  distinguished  author  of  the 
Book  of  Martyrs,  was  born  in  England,  A.  D. 
1617,  and  died  April  15,  1587.  The  first  com- 
plete English  edition  appeared  in  1663.  There 
is  no  doubt  as  to  his  testimony.  He  says: 
'There  were  some  Anabaptists  at  this  time  in 
England,  who  came  from  Germany.  Of  these 
there  were  two  sorts ;  the  first  only  objected  to 
the  baptizing  of  children,  and  to  the  manner  of 
it,  by  sprinkling  instead  of  dipping.  The  other 
held  many  opinions,  anciently  condemned  as 
heresies;  they  had  raised  a  war  in  Germany, 
and  had  set  up  a  new  king  at  Munster ;  but  all 
these  were  called  Anabaptists,  from  their  op- 
position to  infant  baptism,  though  it  was  one 
of  the  mildest  opinions  they  held'  ( Alden  Edi- 
tion, p.  338)." 

This  quotation  from  Fox  was  called  in  ques- 
tion by  Dr.  Newman.  It  was  admitted  that 
my  edition  of  the  Book  of  Martyrs  had  in  it 
the  words  as  I  had  quoted  them,  but  it  was 
pointed  out  that  they  were  omitted  in  some 
other  editions.  Pending  an  investigation  I 
left  this  extract  out  of  the  second  edition  of 
"Did  They  Dip?",  since  it  was  not  desired  to 
place  reliance  upon  any  doubtful  proof.  After 
an  extensive  investig-ation  a  curious  state  of 
affairs  was  found  to  exist.  The  text  in  scarce- 
ly any  two  editions  of  the  Book  of  Martyrs 
agree  even  in  essential  particulars.  This  is 
true  of  the  earliest  editions  as  well  as  of  the 
later  ones.  I  can  say  that  the  language  of  the 
above  extract  is  very  ancient,  i^erhaps  of  Fox, 
and  not  tlie  words  of  a  modern  compiler. 

But  as  to  the  real  opinions  of  John  Fox,  we 
are  not  left  in  doubt.  A  rare  work  lies  be- 
fore me  with  the  title,  "Reformatio  Legvm 
Ecclesiasticarvm,     ex    Avthoritate     Primvm 


103 

Regis  Henricl  8.  inchoata:  Deinde  per  Regem 
Edvoarduui6.  &c."  If  King  Edward  VI.  had 
lived,  this  book  was  to  have  been  set  forth  with 
his  authoritj',  drawn  up  by  A,  B.  Cranmer,  B. 
May  and  other  commissioners,  and  j)enned,  as 
supposed,  by  Dr.  Haddon.  The  book  bears  Dr. 
Haddou's  coat  of  arms.  But  its  publication 
was  defeated  by  the  death  of  the  King.  After- 
wards, through  the  endeavors  of  A.  B.  Parker, 
it  was  set  afoot  again  in  the  Parliament  of  the 
13th  Elizabeth,  and  by  a  leading  member  rec- 
ommended to  the  consideration  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  Care  was  taken  to  have  the  en- 
tire work  j)ublished  as  we  now  see  it  by  John 
Fox  in  the  year  1571,  and  the  conclusion  of  the 
preface  plainly  intimates  the  main  design  of 
the  publication.  It  would  therefore  be  impos- 
sible to  find  a  book  where  we  could  more  au- 
thoritatively get  at  the  opinions  of  the  Ana- 
baptists, from  the  standpoint  of  the  State, than 
from  this  work,  if  it  should  speak  on  the  sub- 
ject at  all.  Fortunately  it  does  speak.  First 
of  all,  this  -work  is  quoted  on  the  subject  of  dip- 
ping and  then  upon  the  subject  of  dipping 
among  the  Anabaptists  of  1671  and  previously. 
I  present  the  original  Latin,  and  a  translation 
follows,  made  by  a  distinguished  professor 
in  a  State  University.  The  following  is  said  of 
dipping  in  general : 

"Dum  autem  in  aquas  demergimur,  &  rursus 
ex  illis  emergimus,  Christi  mors  primum  & 
sepultura  commendatur,  doinde,  suscitatio 
quidem  illius,  &  reditus  ad  vitam,  ut  istius 
mortis  &  vitse  monumentis  recordemur,  & 
palam  testiflcemur  peccatum  in  nobis  mor- 
tuum,  &  sepuitum  jacere,  sed  novum  &  salu- 
tarum  Dei  spiritum  reviviscere  in  nobis,  & 
reflorescere ;  tinctoq ;  foras  externis  aquis  cor- 
pore,  nostras  intils  animas,  abstersis  pecca- 
torum  sordibus,  puras  &  perpurgatas  ad  ceter- 
nas  &  coelestes  oras  se  attoUere  " 

Translation:  "But  while  we  are  plunged  into 


104 

the  waters  and  rise  again  out  of  them,  the 
death  of  Clirist  first,  and  his  burial  is  symbol- 
ized, and  next  his  resuscitation,  indeed,  and 
his  return  to  life,  so  that  we  may  be  reminded 
of  that  death  and  life  by  memorials,  and  may 
openly  bear  witness  that  sin  in  us  lies  dead 
and  buried,  but  that  a  new  and  wholesome 
spirit  of  God  awakes  again  to  life  in  us  and 
flourishes  anew,  and,  the  body  having  been 
dipped  outwardly  in  external  waters,  that  our 
souls  within  lift  themselves  pure  and  thor- 
oughly purged  to  the  eternal  and  celestial 
shores,  the  filthiness  of  sins  having  been  wiped 
away." 

While  it  is  probable  that  Fox  thought  that 
the  sprinkling  of  ''weak  infants"  was  valid 
baptism,  he  undoubtedly  here  strongly  advo- 
cates dipping  The  following  is  said  of  the 
Anabaptists : 

"De  Baptismo.    Cap,  18. 

"Deinde  crudelis  illorum  impietas  in  Baptis- 
mum  irruit,  quem  infantibus  impartiri  nolunt, 
sed  omnino  nulla  ratione.  Nee  enim  minus 
ad  Deum  «fc  Ecclesiam  pertinent  Christian- 
orum  infantes,  quam  liberi  quondam  Hebre- 
orum  pertinebant,  quibus  in  infantia  ciim  cir- 
cumcisio  adhiberetur,  nostris  etiam  infantibus 
debet  baptismus  admoveri,  quoniam  ejusdem 
promissionis  &  foederis  divini  participes  sunt, 
&  k  Christo  sunt  etiam  summa  cum  humani- 
tate  suscepti.  Plures  item  ab  aliis  cumulantur 
errores  in  baptismo,  quem  aliqui  sic  attoniti 
spectant,  ut  ab  ipso  illo  externo  credant  ele- 
mento  Spiritum  sanctum  emerge  re,  vimque 
e]us,nomen,  &  virtutem  ex  qua  recreamur,  & 
gratiam,  &  reliqua  ex  eo  proflciscentia  dona  in 
ipsis  baptismi  fonticulis  innatare.  In  summa 
totam  regenerationem  nostram  illi  sacro  puteo 
deberi  volunt,  qui  in  sensus  nostros  incurrit. 
Verum  salus  animarum,  instauratio  spiritus, 
&beneflcium  ador)tionis,quo  nos  Deus  profiliis 


agnoscit,  k  misericordia  divina  per  Christum 
ad  nos  dimanante,  turn  etiam  ex  promissione 
sacris  Scripturis  appareute  proveuiunt.  Illo- 
rura  etiam  impia  videri  debet  scrupolosa  su- 
perstitio,  qui  Dei  gratiam,&  Spiritum  sanctum 
tantopere  cum  Sacrameutorum  elementis  col- 
ligant,  ut  plane  affirment  nullum  Christianor- 
um  infantem  seternam  salutem  esse  consequut- 
urum,  quipriusa  mortefuerit  occupatus,quam 
ad  Baptismus  adduci  potuerit :  quodlongfe  secus 
habere  judicamus.  Salus  enim  illis  solum 
adimitur,  qui  sacrum  hunc  Baptismi  fontem 
contemnunt,  aut  superbia  quadem  ab  eo,  vel 
contumacia  resiliunt :  qusemi  portunitas  cum  in 
puerorum  setatem  non  cadat,  nihil  contra  salu- 
tem illorum  author  itate  Scriptuarum  decerni 
potest;  immo  contra,  ctim  illos  communis 
promissio  pueros  in  se  comprsehendat,  optima 
nobis  spes  de  illorum  salute  concipienda  est." 
''Afterwards  the  cruel  ungodliness  of  them 
rushes  headlong  into  baptism,  which  they  are 
unwilling  to  bestow  upon  infants,  but  utterly 
without  reason.  For  the  infants  of  Christians 
belong  to  God  and  the  Church  no  less  than  the 
children  of  the  Hebrews  formerly  (belonged  to 
God  and  the  Church) ;  since  to  them  in  infancy 
circumcision  was  allowed,  even  so  ought  bap- 
tism to  be  administered  to  our  infants,  because 
they  are  partakers  of  the  same  divine  promise 
and  covenant,  and  they  were  taken  up  by 
Christ  also  with  supreme  gentleness.  Like- 
wise more  errors  are  heaped  up  by  others  in 
baptism,  which  some  so  amazed  look  at  as  if 
they  believe  that  from  that  external  element 
itself  the  Holy  Spirit  emerges,  and  that  his 
power,  his  name,  and  his  efficacy, out  of  which 
we  are  renewed,  and  his  grace,  and  the  remain- 
ing gifts  proceeding  out  of  it,  swim  in  the  very 
fonts  of  baptism.  In  a  word,  they  wish  our 
total  regeneration  to  be  due  to  that  sacred  pit, 
which  inveighs  against  our  senses.  But  the 
salvation  of  souls,  the  renewal  of  spirit,  and 


the  benefit  of  adoption,  by  which  God  owns  us 
as  sons,  by  divine  mercy  flowing-  througli 
Christ  to  us,  then,  too,  come  forth  out  of  the 
promise  made  good  by  sacred  Scx'iptures.  Also, 
wicked  should  seem  the  scrupulous  supersti- 
tion of  those  who  bind  together  the  grace  of 
God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  elements  of 
the  sacraments,  to  such  a  degree,  that  they, 
clearly  affirm  tliat  no  infant  of  Christians 
(Christian  parents)  will  obtain  salvation  who 
has  been  seized  by  death  before  he  could  be 
brought  to  baptism:  which  we  decide  to  hold 
far  otherwise.  For  salvation  is  denied  only 
to  those  who  contemn  this  font  of  baptism,  or 
from  a  sort  of  pride  or  contumacy  recoil  from 
it:  since  this  insolence  falls  not  into  the  age  of 
children,  nothing  against  their  salvation  can 
be  decreed  by  authority  of  the  Scriptures ;  in- 
deed, to  the  contrary,  since  a  common  prom- 
ise includes  those  children,  we  must  conceive 
the  best  hope  concerning  their  salvation." 

Four  things  are  perfectly  clear  from  the 
above  extracts :  1.  That  immersion  was  bap- 
tism in  1571  in  England.  2.  That  the  Anabap- 
tists denied  infant  baptism.  3.  That  the  Ana- 
baptists iDracticed  dipping  in  England  in  1571. 
Nothing  else  can  be  made  out  of  the  passage. 
4.  That  the  old  charge  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion was  charged  against  the  Anabaptists  of 
1671  as  it  is  made  against  the  Baptists  of  1898. 
Fox  had  every  opportunity  to  know  the  truth. 
He  had  investigated  tlie  Anabaptists.  Tiiere 
is  a  letter  from  him  to  the  Queen,  which  has 
been  preserved,  in  which  he  appeals  for  her 
clemency  in  the  case  of  some  condemned  Ana- 
baptists. With  all  of  the  facts  before  him  he 
could  speak  assuredly,  and  his  declaration 
that  they  practiced  dipping  is  conclusive. 

In  tlie  case  of  Leonard  Busher  we  have  a  clear 
instance  of  immersion.  He  was  a  firm  be- 
liever in  and  an  advocate  of  immersion. 
It    has  been    lield    that    he    was    a   member 


107 

of  the  church  with  Helwys.  But  wheth- 
er he  was  or  not  he  "was  an  Anabaptist" 
(Lawne's  Prophane  Schisme,  p.  56.  A.  D. 
1612.  B.  M.  4139.  bb.  12)  and  a  believer  in  dip- 
ping. He  was  "a  citizen  of  London,"  and 
wrote  his  book  in  1614.  Busher  says:  "And 
therefore  Christ  commanded  his  disciples  to 
teach  all  nations,  and  baptize  them;  that  is,  to 
preach  the  word  of  salvation  to  every  creature 
of  all  sorts  of  nations  that  are  worthy  and 
willing  to  receive  it.  And  such  as  shall  will- 
ingly and  gladly  receive,  He  has  commanded 
to  be  baptized  in  the  water;  that  is,  dipped  for 
dead  in  the  water"  (Plea  for  Liberty  of  Con- 
science, p.  60). 

From  this  tract  it  is  certain  that  Busher  held 
three  distinctive  Baptist  doctrines :  1.  Liberty 
of  conscience ;  2.  Immersion  or  dipping,  and 
3.  Believers'  baptism.  It  is  impossible  to 
break  the  force  of  this  testimony.  Nobody  but 
a  Baptist  would  talk  about  dipping  a  believer 
for  dead.  Nobody  denies  that  Busher  was  a 
Baptist.  Here,  then,  is  one  Baptist  who  was 
a  dipper  27  years  before  1641,  and  not  one  proof 
exists  that  even  one  other  Baptist  differed  from 
Busher  on  the  subject  of  dipping. 

It  is  probable  that  Busher  was  connected 
with  the  church  of  Helwys  and  Morton  in 
London.  We  have  already  seen  that  he  was 
pronounced  in  favor  of  dipping.  The  other 
members  of  this  congregation  were  likewise 
dippers.  Prof.  Masson,  who  is  perhaps  the 
foremost  authority  in  Great  Britain  on  Eng- 
lish affairs  of  the  period  of  the  Civil  War, 
says :  "Now,  this  Helwisse,  returning  to  Eng- 
land shortly  after  1611,  drew  around  him,  as 
we  saw,  the  first  congregation  of  General  or 
Arminian  Baptists  in  London;  and  this  ob- 
scure Baptist  congregation  seems  to  have  be- 
come the  depositary  for  all  England  of  the  ab- 
solute principle  of  Liberty  of  Conscience  ex- 
pressed in  the  Amsterdam  Confession  as  dis- 


tinct  from  the  more  stinted  principle  advo- 
cated by  the  general  body  of  the  Independ- 
ents. Not  only  did  Helwisse's  folk  differ  from 
the  Independents  generally  on  the  subject  of 
Infant  Baptism  and  Dipping;  they  differed 
also  on  the  power  of  the  magistrate  in  matters 
of  belief  and  conscience"  (Life  of  John  Milton, 
Vol.  II„p.  544). 

Fortunately  we  have  contemporaneous  evi- 
dence which  is  as  clear  as  could  be  desired. 
One  I,  H.  in  1610  wrote  a  book  against  this 
very  congregation,  in  which  he  declares:  "For 
tell  me,  shall  every  one  that  is  baptized  in  the 
right  forme  and  manner  (for  that  ye  stand 
much  on)upon  the  skinne  be  saved"  (A  De- 
scription of  the  Church  of  Christ,  p.  27).  Here, 
then,  we  have  the  direct  statement  of  this  an- 
tagonist that  this  church  of  Anabaptists  not 
only  differed  from  the  Puritans  around  them 
on  the  subject  of  bai^tism,  but  on  the  "forme 
and  manner"  of  it  as  well.  The  form  of  the 
Puritans  was  undoubtedly  sprinkling,  the  form 
of  the  Baptists  was  immersion.  John  Robin- 
son, in  his  reply  to  John  Morton,  declares  that 
he  and  his  congregation  practiced  dipping.  He 
says:  "In  the  next  place  they  come  to  baptism, 
in  which  they  think  themselves  11.  their  ele- 
ment, as  fllth  in  the  water.  And  beginning 
with  John's  baptism,"  &c.  (Defence  of  the  Doc- 
trine propounded  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  p.  147. 
B.  M.  8925.  bb.  23).  There  is  no  other  interpre- 
tation possible  for  this  passage. 

But  Morton  testifies  himself  to  his  belief. 
He  declares  that  John  baptized  his  disciples 
IN  JORDAN,  and  then  he  adds  "this  indeed 
was  the  practice  of  the  primitive  churches,  it 
cannot  be  destroyed"  (A  Description  of  What 
God  hath  Wrought,  1620,  pp.  129,  130.  B.  M. 
4255.  aa). 

Fortunately  we  have  yet  another  witness, 
and  this  is  I.  G(raunt),  He  declares  that  Mor- 
ton differed  with  some   on  free  grace,  but  he 


109 

agreed  with  the  rest  on  immersion.  The  -words 
are  in  the  form  of  a  conversation,  and  bear 
date  16J:5.  He  says:  '■'•  Herts.  But  we  have 
found  a  rule  of  truth  in  Gods  Word,  plainly  di- 
recting us  to  the  making  matter  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  none  but  such  as  are  qualified  by 
faith,  are  fit  subjects  of  baptism,  which  faith 
is  wrought  by  teaching,  and  then  baptism  of 
dipping  admits  and  gives  entrance  unto  such 
believers,  to  have  communion  in  church  fel- 
lowship with  us  in  all  holy  ordinances  of  God ; 
which  church  and  ordinances  are  not  under- 
stood, but  neglected  and  contemned  of  all  the 
Heretickes  you  have  named  and  conferred 
with  before,  therefore  we  are  the  true  church, 
for  we  prof  esse  but  one  Lord,  one  Faith,  and 
one  baptisme,  Ephes.  4.5.  Truth.  Sir,  I  per- 
ceive you  are  an  Anabaptist,  and  therefore  I 
shall  speedily  make  good  my  late  promise, 
and  indeed,  some  thirty  years  since,  Mr.  Mor- 
ton, a  Teacher  of  a  Church  of  the  Anabaptists, 
in  Newgate,  then  his  confession  comprehended 
all  the  errors  of  the  Arminians  which  now  of 
late,  many  that  go  under  your  name,  in  and 
about  London  dissent  from,  as  it  seems  you 
do"  (Truths  Victory,  p.  19.  B.  M.  E.  277.  (7) ). 

Now  this  carries  John  Morton  back  to  about 
1615,  and  declares  in  the  plainest  terms  that  he 
practiced  dipping.  Morton  differed  only  from 
some  of  the  Anabaptists  of  1645  on  the  subject 
of  Arminiani8m,but  not  at  all  on  the  subject 
of  believers'  baptism  and  dipping.  Here  is  an- 
other very  clear  example  before  1641  in  favor 
of  dipping. 

In  1623  in  London  Edmond  Jessop  published 
"A  Discovery  of  the  Errors  of  the  English  An- 
abaptists." On  page  62  of  that  book  we  find: 
"  J>i  whom  also  yee  are  circumcised  with  the  circimi- 
cision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  smnes  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christy 
buried  with  him  in  baptisme,  wherein  also  ye  are  ris- 
en with  him  through  the  faith  of  operation  of  God, 


110 

wlio  hath  raistd  him  up  from  the  dead.  In  which 
words  (I  say)  he  settled  downe  expressly,  that 
the  baptisme  which  saveth,  the  baptisms 
whereby  we  put  on  Christ,  the  baptisme  where- 
by our  hearts  are  purged  and  sanctified,  and 
the  sinnes  of  our  flesh  done  away,  whereby  we 
are  buried  with  Christ  and  doe  rise  with  him, 
even  that  which  is  through  the  faith  and  op- 
eration of  the  Spirit,  is  one  and  the  same,  with 
the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  &c." 

In  Daniel  Featley  we  have  a  powerful  witness 
of  the  existence  of  immersion  amon^  the  Bap- 
tists from  a  date  before  1625.  He  published  his 
book,  "The  Dippers  Dipt,"  in  1645,  and  he  says 
that  they  had  lived  near  his  residence  for 
more  than  twenty  years,  which  would  carry 
the  date  of  their  immersions  back  to  a  period 
prior  to  1625.  In  his  Epistle  Dedicatory  he 
says :  '■•They  preach,  and  piint,  and  practise  their 
Htreticall  impieties  operdy,  and  hold  their  Conven- 
ticles weekly  in  our  chief  Cities^and  Suburbs  thereof, 
and  there  projjhesie  by  turnes;  and  (that  I  may  use 
the  phrase  of  TertuUian)  sediflcantur  in  ruinam, 
they  build  one  another  in  the  faith  of  their 
Sect,  to  the  ruine  of  their  souls;  they  flock  in 
great  multitudestotheir  J oTda,ns, and  both  Sexe,s enter 
into  the  River,  and  are  dipt  after  their  manner, 
with  a  kind  of  spell  containing  the  head  of 
their  erroneous  Tenets,  and  their  engageing 
themselves  in  their  Scismaticall  Covenants, 
and  (if  I  may  so  speake)  combination  of  sepa- 
ration. And  as  they  defile  our  Rivers  with 
their  impure  washings,  and  our  Pulpits  with 
their  false  Prophecies,  and  Phanaticall  En- 
thusiasmes,  so  the  Presses  sweat  and  groane 
under  the  load  of  their  blasphemies.  For  they 
print  not  only  Anabaptisnie,  from  whence  they 
take  their  name ;  but  many  other  most  damna- 
ble doctrines,  tending  to  carnall  liberty,  Fam- 
ilisme,  and  a  medley  and  hodge-podge  of  all 
Religions." 

That  passage   is   certainly  clear  enough   on 


in 

the  subject  of  dipping  among  these  Anabap- 
tists. He  then  proceeds  to  tell  us  that  he  has 
known  these  "new  upstart  sectaries"  for 
twenty  years  near  his  own  home.  His  words 
are; 

"As  Solinus  writeth,  that  in  Sardinia  where 
there  is  a  venomous  serpent  called  Solifuo-a 
(whose  biting  is  present  death)  there  is  also  at 
hand  a  fountain,  in  which  they  who  wash 
themselves  after  they  are  bit,  are  presently 
cured.  This  venemous  serpent  (vere  Solifuga) 
flying- from,  and  shunning  the  light  of  God's 
Word,  is  the  Anabaptist,  who  in  these  later 
times  first  shewed  his  shining  head  and 
speckled  skin,  and  thrust  out  his  sting  near 
the  place  of  my  residence  for  more  than 
twenty  years." 

Here  we  have  the  explicit  testimony  of 
Featley  that  the  Baptists  were  dippers  as  far 
back  as  1620.  Prof.  Vedder  very  well  said- 
"These  words  of  Dr.  Featley  are  specially  sig- 
nificant. He  professes  to  speak  of  Baptists 
from  personal  knowledge,  and  though  he  was 
bitterly  prejudiced,  there  is  no  reason  why  he 
should  exaggerate  in  such  a  particular.  Since 
he  wrote  in  1644,  his  'twenty  years,'  however 
carelessly  he  used  the  phrase,  evidently  carry 
the  date  of  immersion  far  back  of  1641." 

The  Pedobaptist  historian  who  replied  to 
Crosby,  John  Lewis,  saw  the  force  of  this  tes- 
timony of  Featley's,  for  he  says:  "Dr.  Daniel 
Featley  in  1645  assured  the  Lords  and  Com- 
mons in  parliament,  to  whom  he  dedicated 
his  book,  that  the  Anabaptist  in  these  later 
times  first  shewed  his  shining  head  near  the 
place  of  his  residence,  Lambeth, for  more  than 
twenty  years,  or  before  1625"  (Rawl.  C.  409K 

Great  effort  has  been  made  to  show  that 
Featley  was  wrong  in  his  statement  of  the  ex- 
istence of  Baptist  churches  near  his  residence 
for  twenty  years.  The  following  very  extrav- 
agant claim  has  been  made:  "The  Borough  in 


119. 

those  days  may  have  contained  as  many  as  sev- 
en or  ten  thousand  inhabitants.  If  anybody  had 
been  immersing  at  Lambeth .  near  Dr.  Featley 's 
residence,  for  more  than  twenty  years,  tliere 
is  sc  rcely  one  chance  in  a  million  that  the 
men  of  the  Jessey  Church  would  not  have  be- 
come aware  of  it.  And  there  is  scarcely  one 
chance  in  ten  millions  that  Dr.  Featley,  who 
was  an  outsider,  should  have  heard  of  these 
immersions,  while  the  men  of  the  Jessey 
Church  remained  in  ignorance  of  them"  (A 
Question  in  Baptist  History,  p.  74). 

It  is  always  hazardous  to  argue  against  a 
positive  statement  of  an  eye  "witness,  when  an 
author  has  nothing  more  than  a  mere  conjec- 
ture. There  is  not  "one  chance  in  ten  mil- 
lions" that  .such  an  author  is  right,  and  this 
time  the  facts  all  happen  to  be  against  him. 
The  opinion  of  the  Baptists  were  notorious  in 
London.  Barber  was  before  Featley  in  1639 
for  being  a  dipper  (Tanner  Ms.  67. 115.  Bodleian 
Library.  Acts  High  Court  of  Commission,  vol. 
434,  fol.  81.  b).  Certain  "Anabaptists"  were 
before  Parliament  in  January,  1640,  and  the 
case  was  a  notorious  one  and  recorded  at 
length  in  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
vol.  4,  p.  183.  B.  M.  Reading  Room.  Two  of 
these  signed  the  Confession  of  1643,  namely 
John  Webb  and  Thomas  Gunn.  At  the  same 
date  there  is  a  long  petition  with  the  names  of 
many  noted  Baptists  on  it  presented  to  Parlia- 
ment. Such  names  as  those  of  Thomas  Lamb 
and  Mark  Whitlock  are  on  it  (House  of  Lord's 
Manuscript).  One  who  is  at  all  familiar  with 
the  records  of  those  times  can  find  case  after 
case  in  the  courts  referred  to  Dr.  Featley.  He 
was  perfectly  familiar  with  what  he  was  say- 
ing, and  therefore  he  declared  that  for  more 
than  twenty  years  the  Anabaptists  had  been 
dipping  near  his  residence  in  Southwark.  In 
fact,  Fuller,  speaking  of  this  church  in  South- 
warkand  its  arrest,  says:  "This  day  happened 


the  first  fruits  of  Anabaptisticall  insolence" 
(Hist.  vol.  6,  p.  180).  That  is,  they  preached 
before  members  of  the  House  of  Lords.  All 
one  needs  to  do  is  to  relate  the  facts  and  down 
the  16il  theory.  The  effort  to  prove  Featley  ig- 
norant about  facts  which  came  before  him  ev- 
ery day  is  amusing.  Featley  was  prejudiced 
and  bitter  toward  the  Baptists  but  he  was  not 
ignorant,  and  when  he  says  they  dipped  for 
more  than  twenty  years  before  1641  he  knew 
what  he  was  talking  about. 

Mr.  Lewis,  however,  is  wrong  in  one  state- 
ment, and  that  is  that  these  Anabaptists  near 
Featley's  residence  were  the  first,  in  these 
later  times.  Featley  directly  traces  these  An- 
abaptists to  the  Continent  and  declares  that 
they  were  all  dippers.  He  mentions  the  Ana- 
baptists of  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.,  Eliza- 
beth, and  James  I.,  and  declares  they  all  prac- 
ticed dipping.  I  again  quote  his  words:  "Of 
whom  we  may  say,  as  Irenseus  sometime 
spake  of  the  Heretick  Ebon,  the  Father  of  the 
Ebonites,  his  name  in  the  Hebrew  signi- 
fyeth  silly,  or  osimple,  and  such  God  wat 
was  he:  So  we  may  say,  the  name  of  the 
father  of  the  Anabaptists  signifieth  in  English 
a  senselesse  piece  of  wood  or  block,  and  a  vei;7 
blockhead  was  he;  yet  out  of  this  block  were 
cut  those  chips  that  kindled  such  a  fire  in. 
Germany,  Halsatia.  and  Sue  via  that  could  not 
be  fully  quenched,  no  not  with  the  bloud  of 
150,000.  of  them  killed  in  war,  or  put  to  death  in 
severall  places  by  Magistrates. 

"This  fire  in  the  reigns  of  Q.  Elizabeth  and 
K.  James  and  our  gracious  Sovereign,  till  now, 
was  covered  in  England  under  the  ashes ;  or  if 
it  brake  out  at  any  time,  by  the  care  of  the  Ec- 
clesiasticall  and  Civil  Magistrate,  it  was  soon 
put  out.  But  of  late  since  the  unhappy  dis- 
tractions which  our  sins  have  brought  upon 
us,  the  Temporall  Sword  being  other  ways  em- 
ployed, and  the  Spirituall  locked  up  fast  in  the 


scabberd,  this  sect,  among  others,  hath  so  far 
presumed  upon  the  xmtience  of  the  State  that 
it  hath  held  weekly  Conventicles,  re-baptized 
hundreds  of  men  and  women  together  in  the 
twilight  in  Rivilets,  and  some  arms  of  the 
Thames  and  elsewhere,  dipping  them  over 
head  and  ears.  It  hath  printed  divers  pamph- 
lets in  defense  of  their  Heresie,  yea  and  chal- 
lenged some  of  our  Preachers  to  disputation. 
Now  although  my  bent  hath  been  hitherto 
against  the  most  dangerous  enemy  of  our 
Church  and  State,  the  Jesuit,  to  extinguish 
such  balls  of  wildfire  as  they  have  cast  in  the 
bosome  of  our  church,  yet  seeing  this  strange 
fire  kindled  in  the  neighbouring  parishes,  and 
many  Nadabs  and  Abihu's  offering  it  on  God's 
Altar,  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  cast  the  waters 
of  Siloam  upon  it  to  extinguish  it." 

No  argument  is  needed  to  enforce  the  words 
of  Featley  as  given  above  in  favor  of  dipping. 
A.  R.,  a  Baptist,  wrote  a  book  in  1642  on  the 
Vanity  of  Infant  Baptism.  A.  R.  makes  a 
clear  and  positive  declaration  on  the  subject 
of  dipping.  Featley  replies  to  this  book,  but 
does  not  controvert  the  doctrine  of  dipping  as 
advocated  by  A.  R.,  but  confirms  it.  lie  goes 
further  and  gives  a  history  of  the  dipping  An- 
abaptists. He  says:  "At  Zurick  after  many 
disputations  between  Zuingiius  and  the  Ana- 
baptists, the  Senate  made  an  Act,  that  if  any 
presumed  to  rebaj^tize  those  that  were  bap- 
tized before,  they  should  be  drowned. 

"At  Vienna  many  Anabaptists  were  so  tyed 
together  in  chains,  that  one  drew  the  other 
after  him  into^the  river,  wherein  they  were  all 
suffocated   (Vide  Supra,  p.  61). 

"Here  you  may  see  the  hand  of  God  in  pun- 
ishing these  sectaries  some  way  answerable  to 
their  sin  according  to  the  observation  of  the 
wise  man  (Gastius,  p.  18),  quo  quis  peccat  eo 
jiuniatur,  they  who  drew  others  into  the  whirl- 
pool of  errour,  by  constraint  draw  one  another 


115 

into  the  river  to  be  drowned ;  and  they  who 
prophaned  baptisme  by  a  second  dipping,  rue 
it  by  a  third  immersion.  But  the  punishment 
of  these  Catabaptists  we  leave  to  them  that 
have  the  Legislative  power  in  their  hands, 
who  though  by  present  coun^vence  they  may 
seem  to  give  them  line:  yet,no  doubt,  it  is  that 
they  more  entangle  themselves  and  more  eas- 
ily bee  caught.  For  my  part,  I  seek  not  the 
confusion  of  their  persons,  but  the  confusion 
of  their  errours,  two  whereof  A.  R.  undertak- 
eth  strenuously  to  defend"  (p.  73). 

It  will  be  remembered  that  I  quoted  the  tes- 
timony of  Fuller,  the  English  Church  Histo- 
rian, to  the  effect  that  the  Baptists  of  1638  who 
were  burned  in  Smithfleld  were  dippers.  Feat- 
ley  makes  the  same  statement.  His  words 
are:  "Let  the  punishment  bear  upon  it  the 
print  of  the  sin:  for  as  these  sectaries  drew  one 
another  into  their  errors,  so  also  into  the  gulfe ; 
and  as  they  drowned  men  spiritually  by  re- 
baptizing,  and  so  prophaning  the  holy  sacra- 
ment, so  also  they  were  drowned  corporally. 
In  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1539,  two  Anabaptists 
were  burned  beyond  Southwark,  in  Newing- 
ton;  and  a  little  before  them,  five  Dutch  Ana- 
baptists were  burned  in  Smithfleld." 

How  a  man  could  be  more  definite  in  his 
statements  than  Featley  is  difficult  to  see.  He 
declares  that  one  of  the  "peculiarities  of  this 
sect"  is  exclusive  dipping.  Think  a  moment 
of  this  testimony.  Featley  was  born  in  1582 
and  died  in  1646.  His  life  covered  the  whole 
period  under  discussion.  He  declares  that  the 
AnabaiDtists  lived  near  him  for  twenty  years, 
and  I  know  from  other  sources  that  he  caused 
great  numbers  of  them  to  be  api^rehended,  and 
many  of  them  were  sent  to  Dr.  Featley  for  ex- 
amination and  instruction.  It  will  be  seen 
from  these  papers  that  Edward  Barber  was 
one  of  that  number.  When  he  declares,  there- 
fore, that  they  practiced  dipping,  he  was  well 


acquainted  with  what  he  was  saying.  No 
amount  of  objection  can  overthrow  this  con- 
clusive and  unanswerable  testimony. 

XI. 

We  give  now  some  Baptist  testimony  showing- 
the  practice  of  the  immersion  of  believers  in 
England  before  January,  16-12,  the  date  men- 
tioned by  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript: 

The  Rev.  John  Canne,  in  April,  1641,  was  a 
"baptized  man;"  this  is  conceded  to  mean  an 
immersed  man.  Dexter,  in  his  Congregation- 
alism as  shown  in  its  Literature,  admits  that 
Canne  had  long  been  a  Baptist  at  this  date, 
and  that  his  troubles  in  Amsterdam  some 
years  previously  was  probably  based  on  his 
being  an  Anabaptist.  But  we  find  in  Stovel's 
Introduction  to  Canne 's  Necessity  of  Separa- 
tion that  Canne  was  an  Anabaptist  in  Holland. 
The  date  was  before  January  16, 1621.  There 
were,  it  is  declared, many  sects  of  the  Anabap- 
tists, and  "Canne  was  pastor  of  one  company" 
(Evans'  Early  English  Baptists,  vol.  2,  pp.  107, 
108).  There  is  no  proof  of  any  change  of  senti- 
ment on  the  part  of  Canne.  He  wad  a  Baptist 
before  1621,  he  was  a  Baptist  in  1641.  He 
practiced  dipping  in  1641,  and  there  is  no 
reason  that  he  was  not  in  the  practice  of 
dipping  as  an  Anabaptist  in  1621.  But  the 
Broadmead  Records  in  April,  1641,  declare  that 
Canne  was  a  "baptized  man,"  that  is,  an  im- 
mersed man,  and  this  is  eight  months  before 
the  alleged  events  described  in  the  Gould 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript.  No  amount  of  ingenu- 
ity can  explain  away  the  fact  that  Canne,  an 
immersed  Anabaptist,  was  preaching  in  Bris- 
tol early  in  1641.  The  statement  is  taken  from 
the  Broadmead  Records,  and  the  facts  set 
forth  cannot  be   denied.    These  Records  say : 

"Anno,  1640.  And  thus  the  Lord  led  them 
by  His  Spirit  in  a  way  and  path  that  they 
knew  not,  having  called  them  out  of  darknesn 


117 

into  his  marvelous  light  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
So  that  in  the  year  of  our  ever  blessed  Re- 
deemer, the  Lord  Jesus  (1640),  one  thousand 
six  hundred  and  forty,  those  five  persons, 
namely,  Goodman  Atkins,  of  Stapleton,  Good- 
man Cole,  a  butcher  of  Lawford's  Gate,  Rich- 
ard Moone,  a  farrier  in  Wine  street,  and  Mr. 
Bacon,  a  young  minister,  with  Mrs.  Hazzard, 
at  Mrs.  Hazzard's  house,  at  the  upper  end  of 
Broad  street,  in  Bristol,  they  met  together, 
and  came  to  a  holy  resolution  to  separate  from 
the  "worship  of  the  world  and  times  they  lived 
in,  and  that  they  would  go  no  more  to  it.  And 
with  godly  purpose  of  heart  (they)  joined 
themselves  in  the  Lord,  only  thus  covenanting, 
that  they  would  in  the  strength  and  assistance 
of  the  Lord  come  forth  of  the  world,  and  wor- 
ship the  Lord  more  purely,  persevering  there- 
in, to  their  end"  (Broadmead  Records,  pp.  17, 
18). 

The  Records  continue:  "At  this  juncture  of 
time  the  providence  of  God  brought  to  this 
city  one  Mr.  Canne,  a  baptized  inan;  it  was  that 
Mr.  Canne  that  made  notes  and  references 
upon  the  Bible.  He  was  a  man  very  eminent 
in  his  day  for  godliness,  and  for  reformation 
in  religion,  having  great  understanding  in  the 
way  of  the  Lord." 

Mrs.  Hazzard,  who  was  the  wife  of  the  par- 
ish priest,  found  him  and  fetched  him  to  her 
home.  Then  the  Records  say:  "He  taught  the 
way  of  the  Lord  more  perfectly,  and  settled 
them  in  church  order,  and  showed  them  the 
difference  betwixt  the  church  of  Christ  and 
anti-Christ,  and  left  with  them  a  printed  book 
treating  of  the  same,  and  divers  printed  i3a- 
pers  to  that  purpose.  So  that  by  this  instru- 
ment Mr.  Canne,  the  Lord  did  confirm  and 
settle  them;  showing  them  how  they  should 
join  together,  and  take  in  members"  (pp.  18, 
T9). 

Mr.  Canne   then   attempted    to  preach   in  a 


118 

suburb  of  the  city  and  a  wealthy  -woman  placed 
some  obstructions  in  his  way.  The  Records 
say:  "The  obstruction  was  by  a  very  godly 
great  woman,  that  dwelt  in  that  place,  wl  o 
was  somewhat  severe  in  the  profession  of  what 
she  knew,  hearing  that  he  was  a  baptized  man, 
by  them  called  Anabaptists,  which  was  to 
some  sufficient  cause  of  prejudice,  because 
the  truth  of  believers  baptism  had  been  for  a 
long  time  buried,  yea,  for  a  long  time  by  popish 
inventions,  and  their  sprinkling  brought  in 
room  thereof.  And  (this  prejudice  existed) 
by  reason  (that)  persons  in  the  practice  of  that 
truth  by  baptism  were  by  some  rendered  very 
obnoxious;  because,  about  one  hundred  years 
before,  some  beyond  the  sea,  in  Germany,  that 
held  that  truth  of  believers  baptism,  did,  as 
some  say,  did  some  very  singular  actions;  of 
whom  we  can  have  no  true  account  what  they 
were  but  by  their  enemies ;  for  none  but  such 
n  any  history  have  made  any  relation  or  nar- 
rative of  them"  (pp.  19,  20). 

A  statement  could  not  be  more  positive  or 
more  to  the  jioint.  John  Canne  was  a  "bap- 
tized man"  in  April,  1641,  and  that  is  a  consid- 
erable time  before  the  "11  Mo.  Janu,"  1641,  ac- 
cording to  modern  reckoning  Jan.,  1642,  when 
the  "Kiffin"  Ms.  says  immersion  began. 

With  these  facts  before  us,  the  following 
statements  are  very  amusing:  "Stovelsays: 
'1641,  Canne  is  at  Bristol,  April  25.'  This 
would  agree  to  a  nicety  with  the  fact  that 
jilunt  had  begun  the  practice  of  immersion  in 
Southwark,  London,  early  in  the  year  1641, 
after  his  return  from  Holland,  whither  he  had 
gone  to  obtain  it  in  1640.  Mr.  Canne,  who  was 
well  acquainted  in  Southwark,  appears  to  have 
submitted  to  the  ordinance  very  promptly  in 
1641,  and  was  in  time  to  reach  Bristol  by  the 
25th  of  April,  1641"  (A  Question  in  Baptist 
History,  pp.  77,78), 

The    Gould    "Kiffin"     Manuscript      makes 


119 


Blunt's  baptism  in  England  to  take  place  in 
January,  16-±1,  old  style,  that  is  to  say,  Janu- 
ary, 1642,  and  that  is  eight  months  after  April, 
1641.  How  a  man  who  writes  "Baptist  His- 
tory" could  be  ignorant  of  this  fact,  is  beyond 
comprehension.  I  take  it  that  no  competent 
scholar  would  question  for  a  moment  that 
April,  1641  is  eight  months  in  advance  of  Jan- 
uary, 1641,  old  style;  new  stj^e  it  would  be 
April,  1641,  and  January,  1642.  Here  is  an  ab- 
solute proof  that  one  Baptist  at  least  was  im- 
mersed before  Blunt  is  said  to  have  exploited 
his  performances  in  England.  That  is  to  say, 
if  it  could  be  proved  that  there  was  such  a  man 
as  Blunt  and  the  Gould  "Kiffln"  Manuscript 
is  correct,  then  this  would  follow.  But  no  one 
knows  anything  of  Blunt,  and  the  "Kiffln" 
Manuscript  is  thoroughly  discredited. 

Edward  Barber  has  been  put  forward  as  the 
"founder  of  immersion  among  Baptists."  How 
Edward  Barber  could  be  the  founder  of  im- 
mersion and  the  "Kiffln"  Manuscript  remain 
true,  cannot  be  explained.  If  the  Gould  "Kif- 
fln" Manuscript  is  to  b.e  trusted,  then  Bichard 
Blunt  is  the  "founder  of  immersion  among 
Baptists."  Certainly  both  Edward  Barber 
and  Richard  Blunt  did  not  accomplish  this  re- 
markable feat.  The  fact  is  that  neither  of 
these  gentlemen  founded  immersion  among 
Baptists  or  among  anybody  else.  One  can  but 
be  struck  by  the  one-sided  statement  of  facts 
always  put  forward  to  sustain  this  amazing  1641 
theory.  Each  particular  instance  is  adjusted  to 
fit  the  preconceived  theory.  One  minute  Rich- 
ard Blunt"  revived ' '  immersion  in  England ,  and 
the  next  moment  we  are  requested  to  believe 
that  Edward  Barber  is  "the  founder  of  immer- 
sion among  Baptists."  I  would  like  for  the 
advocates  of  this  theory  to  be  just  a  little  spe- 
cific, and  tell  us  just  what  they  do  intend  to 
stand  by.  Now  the  following  are  some  of  the 
claims  made  for  Edward  Barber : 


190 

"And  this  reminds  us  that  our  Baptist 
friends  do  not  give  sufficient  honor  to  the  man 
who  deserves  all  their  praise  for  having  re- 
covered to  Protestants  the  apostolic  rite  of  im- 
mersion. We  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  a 
single  reference  in  their  current  newspaper 
press,  in  the  econiums  that  pass  current  at 
their  anniversaries,  to  the  man  whose  name 
ought  to  eclipse  far  that  of  Roger  Williams — 
we  mean  Edward  Barber,  the  father  of  mod- 
ern immersion." — The  J«(?.epe7id  «?,  July  29, 1880. 

"Happily  for  us,  however,  the  above  asser- 
tion is  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  Edward 
Barber,  the  founder  of  the  rite  of  immersion 
among  the  Baptists.  In  the  preface  to  his 
'Treatise  of  Baptism,  or  Dipping,'  London, 
1641,  the  earliest  book  in  the  English  language 
to  assert  that  immersion  is  essential  to  bap- 
tism, Mr.  Barber  praises  God  that  he,  'a  poore 
tradesman,'  was  raised  up  to  restore  this  truth 
to  the  world.  Zion's  Advocate  has  incautiously 
permitted  Ivimey,  or  some  other  Baptist  his- 
torian, to  mislead  it  about  the  cause  of  Bar- 
ber's imprisonment  in  1641.  Crosby  (I.  218) 
says  it  was  for  "denying  the  baptism  of 
infants,  and  that  to  pay  tithes  to  the  clergy  is 
God's  ordinance  under  the  Gospel."  This 
agrees  with  Barber's  own  statement.  He  was 
not  imprisoned  "for  publishing  the  'Treatise 
of  Baptism  or  Dipping.'"  On  the  contrary, 
he  tells  us  that  he  wrote  this  treatise  while  he 
was  in  prison  for  the  cause  above  mentioned." 
— N.  Y.  Independent,  Oct.  7, 1880. 

"Immersion  had  been  started  bv  Barber  in 
1641."— r/ie  Independent,  Oct.  21, 1880 

"The  new  'Cyclopsedia'  does  not  even  men- 
tion the  name  of  Edward  Barber  the  founder 
of  immersion  among  the  Baptists.  This  looks 
like  an  act  of  ingratitude  toward  a  man  who 
has  exerted  a  greater  infiuence  upon  the  Bap- 
tist denomination  than  any  other." — The  Inde- 
mndent,  Feb.  24, 1881. 


121 

"When  Edward  Barber  sent  forth  'A  Small 
Treatise  of  Baptisme  or  Dipping^  a  new  note 
had  been  struck.  The  man  was  here  asserting 
against  the  whole  of  Western  Christendom 
that  baptism  is  synonymous  with  dipping; 
that  there  is  no  other  baptism  but  dipping.  He 
aimed  to  show  'that  the  Lord  Christ  ordained 
Dipping'  and  not  sprinkling  or  pouring.  The 
claim  that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  act  of 
baptism  had  been  a  long  while  unknown  in 
England. 

"Mr.  Barber  also  indicates  the  exact  time 
when  it  was  introduced  again.  His  book  bears 
'  the  date  of  1641,  and  in  it  he  claims  the  dis- 
tinguished honor  'to  divulge  this  glorious 
Truth  to  the  World's  Censuring.'  Xobody  in 
recent  times  had  divulged  it  in  England.  His 
book  was  the  first  in  modern  ages  to  make  it 
known  to  the  English  public.  The  annals  of 
English  literature  will  be  searched  in  vain  for 
a  volume  that  precedes  it  in  date  and  yet 
maintains  that  nothing  else  is  true  baptism 
but  immersion. 

"Whatever  quibbles  may  be  raised  about 
other  questions,  none  can  be  raised  about  this 
one.  The  ordinance  was  extinct  in  England 
in  1641,  if  Barber's  authority  is  worth  any- 
thing at  all,  and  if  the  plainest  statements  of 
fact  are  capable  of  being  understood  by  the 
human  mind"  (A  Question  in  Baptist  History, 
pp.  90, 114,116, 119). 

I  have  been  thus  explicit  in  stating  this  case 
since  so  much  has  been  claimed  for  the  testi- 
mony of  Edward  Barber.  For  the  life  of  me, 
I  cannot  guess  what  the  testimony  of  Edward 
Barber  has  to  do  with  the  "KifRn"  Manuscript 
in  the  way  of  confirming  it,  because  if  Edward 
Barber  founded  immersion,  Richard  Blunt  did 
not.  Edward  Barber  was  a  General  Baptist; 
this  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  business  had  refer- 
ence to  the  Particular  Baptists.  Any  one  in 
the  least  acquainted  with  the  history  of  these 


122 

two  bodies,  knows  that  they  uot  only  did  not 
affiliate,  but  were  hostile.  If  Richard  Blunt 
had  invented  immersion,  it  would  not  have 
been  a  powerful  reason  for  Barber  to  accept  it, 
but  rather  a  reason  against  his  acceptance; 
and  liad  Barber  been  the  founder  of  immer- 
sion, it  would  not  have  appealed  to  Blunt.  It 
has  taken  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  to  get 
these  two  bodies  of  Baptists  to  co-operate  in 
their  work,  which  was  accomplished  two  or 
three  years  ago,  and  even  now  all  friction  and 
jealousies  are  not  gone.  There  was  no  har- 
mony between  them  at  that  period.  The  co- 
operation of  these  Baptist  bodies  in  1641  in 
reviving  immersion  is  a  myth  and  did  not  ex- 
ist. The  above  quotations  show  ignorance  of 
the  fact  of  Edward  Barber,  and  indicate  a 
knowledge  of  only  a  few  extracts  from  his 
book  on  Baptism. 

In  1641  Barber  had  long  been  a  Baptist.  The 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography  is  a  great 
work  which  is  now  appearing  in  England  in 
many  volumes.  I  find  it  unusually  accurate. 
Each  article  is  prepared  by  a  specialist  who 
goes  into  the  original  authorities.  The  article 
on  Edward  Barber  was  prepared  by  Thompson 
Cooper,  F.  S.  A.  He  says  of  Barber :  "Edward 
Barber,  baptist  minister,  was  originally  a 
clergyman  of  the  established  church,  but  long 
before  the  beginning  of  the  civil  wars  he 
adopted  the  principles  of  the  Baptists"  (Vol. 
3,  p.  330.  B.  M.  2008.  d).  And  yet  the  view  I 
am  opposing  rests  itself  entirely  upon  a  mis- 
use of  the  word  "divulge,"  as  used  by  Barber. 
It  is  claimed  that  Barber  was  the  founder  of 
immersion,  that  he  was  imprisoned  in  1641, 
and  at  the  close  of  this  year  he  came  out  of 
prison,  and  in  the  closing  months,  later  than 
October,  of  1641,  founded  immersion  (Independ- 
enf,  Jan.  19, 1882).  Not  one  of  these  proposi- 
tions is  true.  Edward  Barber  was  not  in  pris- 
on in   1641.      The  facts    are     these:    Edward 


Barber  appeared  before  the  King's  Commis- 
sion sitting  at  Lambeth  on  Wednesday  20  day 
of  June,  1639.  "This  day  the  said  Edward  Bar- 
ber appeared  personally,  and  being  required  to 
take  his  corporal  oath  to  answer  articles,  hee 
humbly  desired  to  be  allowed  to  be  released 
concerning  the  same  until  the  High  Court  day 
of  Michaelmas  term  next,  which  humble  re- 
quest, the  Court  taking  into  tlieir  considera- 
tion, did  grant  the  said  Barber,  for  taking  his 
oath  untill  the  first  Court  day  of  the  next  term 
according  as  was  decreed,  and  monished  him 
in  the  meantime  to  confer  with  some  learned 
divine  concerning  the  lawfulness  of  taking  the 
oath  ex  officio,  touching  which  he  was  (as  he 
allowed)  not  satisfied  in  conscience  the  Court 
ordered  him  to  appear  the  first  Court  day  of 
Michaelmas  come  next  foresaid,  to  take  his 
oath  to  answer  articles,  according  to  the  stile 
of  the  Court,  to  wh  in  regard  he  refuse,  he  is 
decreed  then  to  bee  then  pro  confesso,  touch- 
ing all  the  matters  concerning  said  articles 
against  him,  his  refusal  to  take  his  oath  not- 
withstanding" (Tanner  MSS.  67.  115.  Bodleian 
Library) . 

The  next  entry  is  1640.  Edward  Barber  and 
Mark  Whitlocke.  The  cause  to  be  informed 
in ;  and  inform  them  the  Court  if  in  prison 
(orders  them)  to  be  brought  (Acts  of  the  High 
Court  of  Commission,  Vol.  434,  fol.  52.  b. 
Jan.  23). 

1640.  Jan.  30.  vol.  434.  fol.  67.  Edward  Bar- 
ber and  Marke  Whitlocke  are  ordered  to  be 
declared  pro  confesso  if  they  take  not  oaths  to 
answer  the  articles  by  this  day.  For  next 
Court  day. 

1640.  Feb.  6.  vol.  434.  fol.  81.  b.  Edward 
Barber.    Appointed  for  next  Court  day. 

1640.  June  25.  vol.  434.  fol.  224.  Edward 
Barber,  prisoner  in  Newgate.  Released  at  his 
wifes  petition  on  giving  bond  to  appear  here 
the  first  Court  day  of  Michaelmas  term,  and 


134 

of  his  promise  to  confer  with  Featley  and  oth- 
er divines  touching  the  lawfulness  of  the  oath 
ex  officio  in  the  meantime. 

Now  here  is  an  abstract  of  the  Court  records 
of  Edward  Barber,  taken  from  the  public  rec- 
ords preserved  in  the  Record  Office,  London, 
and  the  Bodleian  Library.  Edward  Barber 
was  not  in  jail  in  1641  at  all,  and  all  that  about 
his  getting  out  of  jail  and  publishing  immedi- 
ately his  book  on  Baptism  is  a  fairy  tale.  He 
was  out  of  jail  a  whole  year  and  a  half  before 
his  book  was  published.  It  is  admitted  that 
he  held  this  view  of  immersion  since  he  was 
in  prison,  therefore  he  had  been  an  immersion- 
ist  since  June  25th,  1640. 

But  we  can  come  closer  to  the  date  of  his 
opinion  on  dipping  than  that.  He  distinctly 
says  at  the  end  of  his  Preface  in  his  book  on 
Baptism  that  he  was  a  prisoner  because  lie 
denied  the  lawfulness  of  the  sprinkling  of  in- 
fants. His  words  are:  '•'■By  Edward  Barber, 
Citizen^  and  Merchant-Taylor  of  London;  late  Pris- 
oner, for  denying  the  sprinkling  of  Infants,  and  re- 
quiring tithes  now  under  the  Gospel  to  he  Gods  Or- 
dinance.''^ There  can  be  no  dodging  of  these 
words.  They  are  very  plain.  Edward  Barber 
declares  that  he  was  imprisoned  for  denying 
the  sprinkling  of  infants.  The  date  of  his  im- 
prisonment was  June  20, 1639.  Edward  Barber 
was  therefore  an  immersionist  two  years  and 
a  half  before  the  alleged  time  that  immersion 
was  introduced  in  England.  He  was  in  1639 
already  a  Baptist,  and  was  therefore  an  im- 
mersionist before  that  date.  Therefore  the 
statement  of  Edward  Barber  is  fatal  to  the 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript  when  that  document  de- 
clares that  immersion  had  not  been  practiced 
previously. 

When  we  come  to  look  into  the  case  of  Ed- 
ward Barber  we  find  yet  further  evidence  of 
his  immersion  views  in  1639.  One  of  the  most 
prominent  Baptists  of  the  times  of  the  Civil 


125 


Wars  was  Dr.  Peter  Chamberlain.    He  was  a 
whole-souled   Baptist   and  rather  aggressive. 
For  some  reason  he  had  occasion  to  attack  Dr. 
Gouge,   who  was  a   prominent  Episcopalian 
scholar.    Dr.  Chamberlain  was  very  bold  in 
his  statements,  and  so  far  from  affirming  that 
immersion    began    in  1641,  he  affirmed    that 
sprinkling  in  England  was  of  very  recent  date. 
His  words  are  so  interesting  that  I  shall  lay  a 
few   of   them  before    the    reader.    He    says: 
''Therefore  the  washing  of  the  ivhok  body,  as  was 
appointed  by  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  and 
was    the    COMMAND  and    PRACTICE    OF 
CHRIST    and    his   APOSTLES,   and    those 
learned    men    whom     they   commonly    call 
FATHERS,  is  the  right  way  of  administering  the 
Sacrament,  and   not  a  new  invented  way  of 
SPRINKLING,  which  (though  practised)  was 
never  commanded  till  of  late"  (Mr.  Blakewells 
Sea  of  Absurditis  concerning  Sprinkling  driven 
Back,  p.  6.  London,  1650.  B.  M.  702.  d.  12  (10) ). 
This  exactly  corresponds  with  the  statement 
of  Wall  that  sprinkling  did  not  begin  to  prevail 
till  1644  and  must  have  begun  in  1641.    It  is  re- 
freshing to  hear  this  Baptist  talk  right  out  in 
meeting.    It  is  quite  certain  that  he  did  not 
think  that  immersion  began  in  1641.    And  Dr. 
Champerlain  continues :    ''To  avoid  the  hard- 
ship of    Winter,  the  Common-Prayer-Book  will 
tell  you  in  the  preamble,  that  Easter  and  Whit- 
suntide    were     therefore    appointed     by     the 
Antients  for  fit  times  of  Baptisme.    After  the 
Winter-Baptizing  of  children  in  Wales,  will  suf- 
ficiently testify  that  you  first  in  your  own  un- 
truths, by  the  strength  of  your  distorted  imag- 
inations" (p.  li).    It  is  perfectly  plain  that  the 
Welsh  Pedobaptists  in  1650  were  still  immers- 
ing infants.  „    T.r     ,- 
What  has  all  this  to  do  with  Barber?    Much 
in  every  way.    Edward  Barber  not  only  en- 
dorsed these  statements  but  he  lent  a  helping 
hand  to  his  friend,  Peter  Chamberlam.    He 


126 

■wrote  a  letter  to  Dr.  Chamberlain  giving  him 
some  facts.  Of  this  letter  Dr.  Chamberlain 
says:  "For  I  have  been  enformed  by  Mr.  JScZ- 
ward  Barber,  and  have  it  under  his  hand  since 
you  printed  your  letter,  that  at  2  severall 
times,  both  upon  his  being  sent  unto  him  by 
the  Bishops,  and  one  Marke  Whitlocke,  to  be 
satisfied  for  taking  the  oath  ex  oflBcio.  Dr. 
Gouge  did  acknowledge  (not  onely  sprinkling) 
but  the  baptizing  of  infants  was  a  tradition  of 
the  church,  and  used  it  as  one  argument  to 
take  that  oath:  But  to  your  arguments"  (p.  3). 
Here  is  a  positive  statement  that  Dr.  Gouge, 
when  arguing  with  Edward  Barber,  confessed 
that  immersion  was  baptism,  and  tried  to  con- 
vince him  not  to  make  immersion  a  point 
against  taking  the  oath.  It  is  precisely  the 
same  thing  which  Barber  himself  stated  that 
he  was  imprisoned  for  denying  infant  sprink- 
ling. The  date  is  likewise  given.  It  was 
when  he  and  one  "Mark  Whitlocke"  were  to 
be  satisfied  "for  taking  the  oath  ex  officio," 
and  that  this  occurred  on  two  occasions.  Turn  to 
the  Court  record  as  given  above,  and  the  dates 
are  apparent,  viz.:  June  20, 1639,  and  Jan.  30, 
1640.  Therefore  Edward  Barber  was  an  im- 
mersionist  in  1639.  Edward  Barber  is  there- 
fore a  positive  witness  against  this  1641  theory, 
or  more  properly  this  1642  theory. 

XU. 

Edward  Barber's  testimony  is  decisive. 
"Writing  in  1641 ,  he  answers  objections  to  the 
practice  of  immersing  beli vers,  and  this  proves 
the  practice  must  have  previously  existed. 
For  example,  on  page  2  Barber  says:  "Oth- 
ers affirming  there  was  no  plain  text  for  the 
Dipping  of  any  Woman,  by  the  which  they 
discover  much  ignorance  of,  or  malice  against 
the  Truth,  striving  to  uphold  the  traditions  of 
men  instead  of  the  glorious  Institutions  of 
Jesus  Christ:    for  the   word  saith.  Acts  8.12, 


127 


that  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the 
things  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  dipt,  both 
men  and  women." 

Of  com-se ,  they  must  have  been  immersing  the 
women  before  this  objection  could  have  arisen, 
and  now  in  1641  it  not  only  had  arisen,  but  had 
spread  so  far  that  Barber  felt  he  must  answer 
it.  Certainly,  then,  they  immersed  women  in 
England  before  1641. 

Again  Barber  says,  p.  40  (official  ms.  from 
British  Museum):  "Lastly,  whereas  the 
clothes,  or  vestments,  are  said  to  be  holy, 
which  they  weare  when  they  receive  the  Ordi- 
nance of  Dipping,  they  being  dipt  into  the 
death  of  Christ:  for  answer,  hee  might  as  well 
have  said,  the  clothes  are  holy, preached  unto, 
exhorted  to  repentance,  faith, and  other  duties 
that  men  weare  when  they  are  in  their  As- 
semblies, but  as  is  the  man  so  is  his  strength 
Judges:  8.21,  and  for  setting  our  parts  by  Gods 
parts.  Ezek:  43.8." 

Here  Barber  is  in  1641  answering  the  objec- 
tion that  his  co-religionitsts  regarded  the  very 
clothes  in  which  they  received  "the  ordinance 
of  dipping"  as  holy.  Such  an  objection  proves 
the  previous  existence  of  the  dipping.  The 
practice  must  have  existed  for  some  time  in 
order  for  this  objection  to  arise,  and  for  it  to 
become  sufficiently  general  to  make  Barber 
think  he  must  answer  it. 

Still  again  Barber  says  (p.  6) :  "In  like  man- 
ner lately,  those  who  professe  and  practice  the 
dipping  of  Jesus  Christ,  instituted  in  the  Gos- 
pel, are  called  and  reproached  with  the  name 
of  Anabaptists,  although  our  practice  be  no 
other  than  what  was  instituted  by  Christ  him- 
self e,  &c." 

The  reader  will  note  that  it  is  not  the  "prac- 
tice of  dipping"  which  has  "lately"  appeared: 
but  the  thing  that  has  "lately"  come  to  pass 
IS  that  "those  who  professe   and  practice  the 


123 

dipping  of  Jesus  Christ"  are  "called  and  re- 
pi'oached  with  the  name  of  Anabaptists."  The 
dipping,  according  ;,to  Barber,  was  older  than 
the  name  Anabaptist.  It  is  conceded  that 
there  had  all  along  for  over  a  century  been 
those  in  England  "called  and  reproached  with 
the  name  of  Anabaptists."  Hence  Barber  be- 
lieved "our  practice"  viz.,  "the  dipping  of 
Jesus  Christ  instituted  in  the  Gospel,"  had 
been  observed  for  a  longer  period  than  that. 
Certainly  Edward  Barber  was  not  "the  found- 
er of  the  rite  of  immersion  among  the  Bap- 
tists," nor  had  he  ever  heard  of  the  recent  in- 
troduction of  immersion  from  Holland  or  from 
anywhere  else.  Remember  Barber  wrote  this 
in  1641. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  Barber  said  that 
baptism  was  "destroyed  and  raced  out"  in 
England"  (Question  in  Baptist  History,  p.  115). 
This  is  a  complete  mistake.  Barber  says  no 
such  thing.  He  is  answering  P.  B.'s  argu- 
ment that  Roman  Catholic  baptism  was  valid 
"despite  the  defection  of  Anti-Christ,"  and  he 
shows  that  such  baptism  could  not  be  valid 
because  the  Roman  Catholics  had  destroyed 
and  raced  out  baptism  botli  as  to  the  act  and 
as  to  the  subject.  Speaking  of  the  Romish  de- 
partures from  Bible  teaching.  Barber  says,  p. 
39::  "Thus  it  stands  in  truth  for  the  Dipping 
of  Christ,  destroyed  and  raced  out  both  for 
matter  and  form,  as  hath  been  formerly 
showed,  the  matter  being  a  believer  desiring 
it,  the  true  form  dipping  them  into  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  New  Covenant,  to  be  visible 
heires,  Rom:  8.17,  Gallat:  4.5,  Matth  28.20, 
whereas  the  other  is  but  the  tradition  of  the 
Church."  Barber  nowhere  intimates  that  im- 
mersion was  a  "lost  art"  in  England,  or  that 
it  needed  any  reintroduction.  If  this  testi- 
mony of  Barber  be  not  decisive,  will  not  some 
one  explain  what  he  could  have  said  that  would 
have  been  decisive? 


129 

An  ounce  of  fact  is  worth  a  ton  of  fiction. 

Thomas  Lamb  became  a  Baptist  long  before 
1641,  and  was  an  ardent  supporter  of  immer- 
sion. He  was  a  General  Baptist,  and  in  no 
wise  connected  with  the  Calvinistic  Baptists 
of  England,  so  he  could  not  have  been  con- 
nected with  the  Blunt  story  and  baptizing  in 
any  way,  even  if  that  baptizing  took  place 
and  there  ever  was  a  Blunt.  Mr.  Lamb  joined 
the  Baptists  before  the  Civil  Wars,  and  in  the 
first  years  of  Charles  the  First  was  active  as  a 
Baptist  minister.  Crosby  says  of  Lamb: 
"Was  a  zealous  and  popular  preacher  among 
the  Baptists,  during  the  tyrany  of  Archbishop 
Laud"  (Hist.  Bapt.,  vol.  3,  p.  6-1). 

He  was  arrested  on  the  6th  of  February,  1640, 
and  committed  to  the  Fleet  prison  "to  restrain 
him  from  company,  keeping  of  conventicles, 
and  private  exercises  of  religion''  (Acts  of 
High  Court  of  Commission,  vol.434,  fol.  88). 
He  was  released  from  the  Fleet,  June  25,  1640. 
He  was  released  on  bail  on  the  petition  of  his 
wife  who,  with  his  family,  had  no  means  to 
maintain  themselves.  He  was  ordered  "not  to 
preach,  baptize  or  frequent  any  conventicle" 
(Acts  of  High  Court  of  Commission,  vol.  434, 
fol.  221).  That  this  baptism  which  this  man 
was  performing  was  immersion,  there  is  no 
doubt.  He  was  not  well  out  of  prison  till  he 
was  sent  for  to  go  into  Gloucestershire.  I 
have  an  account  of  this  visit  into  Gloucester 
from  an  Episcopalian  rector.  I  give  the  ac- 
count as  he  records  it:  "There  were  nere  my 
dwelling  a  company  of  the  separation,  who  un- 
dertook to  erect  a  Church  by  entering  into  a 
covenant,  and  these  carried  on  their  resolu- 
tions hand  smooth,  until  they  were  grown 
into  a  great  faction.  And  (as  it  is  the  prop- 
erty of  that  schisme  to  speak  at  randome)  they 
began  to  let  file  against  the  Church  assemblies 
of  England,  as  false,  Antichristian,  and  out  of 
Gods  way. 


180 

"Whereupon  I  began  to  enquire  into  the  na- 
ture of  their  Covenant,  and  told  them,  that  if 
it  were  a  covenant  of  first  entrance  into  the 
true  visible  Church  of  Christ,  then  of  neces- 
sity the  parties  so  entering  must  have  the 
seale  of  first  entrance  imprinted  upon  them, 
which  (under  the  Gospell)  is  Baptisme.  For 
if  the  ministry  they  leave  be  false  in  the  very 
constitution  thereof,  then  the  Sacraments  by 
them  administered,  must  needs  be  nullities; 
and  so  now  they  having  a  lawful  ministry  con- 
stituted and  set  in  Christs  way,  they  must  be- 
gin all  anew,  Bai)tisme  and  all.  Thus  (by 
way  of  arguing)  I  spake  unto  diverse  of  them, 
which  did  so  puzzle  them,  that  not  long  after 
some  of  them  fell  upon  this  practice  of  sealing 
their  covenant  with  baptisme,  renouncing 
their  baptisme  in  their  infancy,  as  a  nullity 
and  an  Idoll.  and  being  demanded  by  the  mag- 
istrates of  the  City  of  Gloucester  (before  whom 
they  were  convented)  who  was  that  advised 
them  into  this  practise,  they  nominated  mee 
to  be  the  first  that  put  them  up  to  it:  whereas 
I  was  so  farre  from  it,  that  I  held  that  the 
dangerous  Covenant  of  the  Separation  would 
necessarily  lead  unto  this.  And  moreover  one 
Walter  Coles  of  Painsewicke  a  Taylor  (a  man 
of  good  behaviour  a  long  time,  and  well  es- 
teemed by  the  godly  and  best  Christians)  This 
man  (I  say)  fell  off  first  to  the  Separation, 
(where  he  had  his  bane.)  And  God  having 
given  him  another  child,  he  refused  to  have  it 
baptized  untill  it  cold  answer  for  itself.  This 
matter  fell  into  debate  in  Mr.  Wels  his  congre- 
gation at  Whaddon,  Pastor  to  the  Separation 
there,  where  the  said  Coles  was  a  member. 
Now  Mr.  Wels  and  the  Church  officers  his 
division  (foreseeing  the  ill  consequence  of  this 
businesse)  had  resolved  to  determine  against 
the  said  Walter :  but  this  being  perceived  by 
the  said  Coles,  he  desired  to  go  out  of  the  said 
company,  and  happy  had  it  been  for  him,  if 


hee  had  returned  to  his  former  godly  and  prof- 
itable courses  of  doing  good.  But  he  goes 
further,  and  turns  plain  Anabaptist.  And  so 
making  a  journey  to  London  hee  brings  down 
one  Thomas  Lambe  a  chandler  (as  is  reported) 
and  one  Clem,  Writer  a  Factor  in  Blackwell- 
hall  London  (both  Anabaptists)  into  this  coun- 
try. And  I  being  In  London,  these  two  travel- 
lors  (by  Walter  Coles  his  directions)  came  on 
the  Lords-day  to  Cranham  (where  I  did  and 
doe  serve  in  the  work  of  the  ministry)  and 
there  the  said  Lamb  (being  in  a  grey-suit)  of- 
fers to  preach  in  publtcke,  b'lt  being  disap- 
pointed by  Gods  good  providence  of  his  wicked 
purpose  he  retires  to  a  private  house  in  Cran- 
ham above  said,  and  by  Preaching  there  he 
subverted  many.  And  shortly  after  in  an  ex- 
treame  cold,  and  frosty  time,  in  the  night  sea- 
son, diverse  men  and  women  were  rebaptized 
in  the  gi'eat  river  Severne  in  the  City  of  Glou- 
cester. And  so  at  length  returning  from  Lon- 
don, I  found  the  face  of  things  much  altei'ed, 
and  many  strangely  leaning  to  the  heresie  of 
the  Anabaptists.  And  they  put  on  the  busi- 
nesse  with  such  preemtory  boldnesse,  as  if 
the  world  had  beene  unable  to  gainsay  their 
practice,  or  refute  their  doctrine.  Whereupon 
to  clear  my  self  e,  and  to  satisfie  others,  I  un- 
dertooke  the  controversie  at  Cranham,  where 
they  had  left  their  poyson.  And  when  I  un- 
dertook it,  the  Anabaptists  from  Gloucester, 
and  Painswicke  came  to  heare  mee  and  set 
upon  mee  in  the  open  face  of  the  Congregation, 
as  soon  as  I  came  downe  out  of  the  Pulpit.  I 
desired  them  to  forbeare  publique  tumults,  and 
to  send  in  their  exceptions  against  what  I  laid 
dowu  for  Paedobaptism.  And  at  first  they 
sent  mee  in  a  paper  with  no  hand  to  it :  but  this 
I  rejected,  and  delivered  backe  tothemagaine, 
because  I  knew  no  one  of  them  would  stand  to 
it,  when  once  the  folly  thereof  was  declared. 
At  length  I  received  about  to  sheetes  of  paper, 


132 

and  yet  (though  it  came  in  the  name  of  them 
all)  there  was  but  one  hand  unto  the  same, and 
this  Champion  doth  so  stoutly  manage  the 
matter,  that  surely  if  his  cause  were  suitable 
to  his  stomacke, neither  men  nor  angels  could 
stand  before  him.  It  is  high  time  then  for  us 
to  bestirre  ourselves,  when  condemned  here- 
sies shall  find  such  bold  abettours,  and  that  in 
the  Land  of  light  and  truth.  The  Lord  put  it 
into  the  hearts  of  our  parliament  to  settle  a 
Government  with  us  with  speed,  that  outfac- 
ing impudencie  may  be  called  to  account,  that 
truth  and  peace  may  dwell  in  our  land"  (The 
Covenants  Plea  for  Infants.  Oxford,  1642.  B. 
M.  E.  116.  (17).    Preface  to  the  Reader). 

That  this  baptism  in  the  Severn  river  took 
place  in  the  Winter  or  late  Fall  of  1640  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  The  season  is  well  marked, 
for  the  narrative  says  it  was  ''an  extreme  cold 
and  frosty  time."  We  can  come  very  near  set- 
ting the  exact  date.  Mr.  Wynell,  in  writing  to 
these  Baptists,  says  further:  "And  so  Lamb 
your  founder  in  his  directions  to  you  expounds 
the  place.  But  aske  that  asse  how  he  can 
make  good  his  exposition.  And  his  letter  will 
answer  you,  that  you  must  take  it  upon  his 
word,  or  else  he  knowes  not  what  to  say  to  you. 
And  I  between  you  had  this  deep  Divinity 
from  that  letter,  for  that  letter  beares  date 
Feby  11.  Anno  1641.  And  your  paper  bears  date 
March  22.  Anno  1641  so  that  allowing  a  consid- 
erable for  the  coming  of  his  letter  from 
London  to  you:  you  might  have  time  enough 
to  make  use  of  your  instructions"  (p.  40)  Now 
we  have  a  fixed  date  to  work  from.  Lamb 
dated  his  letter  in  London,  Feb.  11th,  1641. 
This  letter  marked  the  time  that  the  rector 
was  replying  to  the  Baptists,  but  the  immer- 
sions had  long  before  this  taken  place  in  the 
Severn.  Let  us  for  a  moment  watch  the  trend 
of  affairs.  This  man,  Walter  Coles,  became  a 
Baptist,  had   a  child  born  to  him,  refused  to 


1*3 

have  it  "baptized,"  went  to  London  and 
brought  Lamb  and  one  other  preacher  to  Glou- 
cester, these  preachers  remained  some  time  in 
Gloucester  preaching,  returned  to  London; 
after  a  while,  the  rector,  who  was  in  London, 
returned  home,  found  a  great  change  had  taken 
place  in  the  sentiment  of  the  people,  prepared 
a  sermon  and  preached  it,  held  a  controversy 
with  the  Baptists,  received  propositions  from 
them  and  returned  these  propositions  to  them 
because  they  were  not  satisfactory,  and  then 
the  Baptists  wrote  to  London  to  Lamb  for  a 
paper,  which  was  prepared  and  returned  to 
Gloucester  by  Feb.  II,  1641.  It  is,  therefore, 
perfectly  plain,  when  we  take  these  facts  and 
the  slowness  of  travel  into  consideration,  that 
this  baptism  in  the  Severn  took  place  in  the 
Autumn  or  early  Winter  of  1640.  If  Feb.  11, 
16-11,  is  old  style,  then  this  immersion  took 
place  in  1639. 

But  the  Autumn  or  early  Winter  of  1640  was 
more  than  a  year  before  the  Gould  "Kifiin" 
Manuscript  places  the  date  of  the  Blunt  episode. 

Another  fact  stands  out  most  prominent. 
Thomas  Lamb  was  known  by  the  authorities 
as  a  baptizer,  and  was  turned  out  of  jail  with 
the  admonition  that  he  should  not  "baptize," 
which  could  only  mean  that  he  should  not  im- 
merse, for  nothing  was  said  about  re-baptism 
or  Anabaptism.  When  he  went  to  Gloucester 
he  was  known  as  a  dipper,  since  he  was  an 
"Anabaptist,"  and  the  rector  expressed  no  sur- 
prise that  this  Anabaptist  should  dip  his  con- 
verts, buttook  this  as  a  matter  of  course.  This 
instance  shows,  therefore,  that  immersion  was 
the  custom  of  the  Anabaptists  before  1641. 
This  of  itself  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
Baptists  were  dippers  in  1640,  and  that  the 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript  is  wholly  unreliable. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Mr.  John  Goodwin,  a 
Congregational  preacher  of  London,  had  a 
prominent  member,  Mr.  William  Allen,  to  join 


the  Baptists,  and  Mr.  Allen  became  a  very 
Ijrominent  minister  among  the  Baptists.  This 
made  Goodwin  furious,  and  he  wrote  his  book, 
"Water  Dipping."  In  that  book  he  spoke  of 
the  "new  mode  of  dipping  "  Allen  replies  to 
one  of  these  attacks,  and  says  "dipping"  is  not 
"new,"  but  is  the  "old"  baptism  (An  Answer 
to  Mr.  J.  G.,  B.  M.  E.  713. 17.  p.  34). 

Thomas  Lamb  was  indignant  at  this  attack 
of  Mr.  Goodwin,  and  at  once  resented  it.  He 
knew  that  dipping  among  the  Baptists  was  no 
new  thing.  Lamb's  opinion  of  Goodwin's 
book  is  expressed  in  rather  vigorous  words. 
He  says:  "Sir,  you  say  to  Mr.  Udvards  that 
his  Gangraena  made  great  joy  in  hell:  what- 
ever his  Gangraena  did  in  hell  I  know  not,  but 
I  believe,  upon  good  grounds,  that  your  water- 
dipping,  especially  this  eighteenth  considera- 
tion [which  was  on  dipping],  hath  made 
more  joy  on  earth,  among  the  seekers, 
Ranters,  and  all  sorts  of  non-churches,  than 
even  they  had  in  all  their  lives  before,  by 
how  much  you  excell  the  most,  in  parts,  learn- 
ing, wit,  &c,  by  so  much  the  more  in  their  con- 
solation, that  you  seem  to  feel  weight  in  the 
arguments,  HEAR  HOW  THEY  CLAP 
THEIR  HANDS  AND  SING"  (Truth  Prevail- 
ing, p. 78.  London,  1665.  B.  M. 4323b.)  Mr.  Good- 
win became  much  ashamed  of  what  he  had 
done  and  in  his  Cata-Baptism  apologized  for 
this  "Grasshopper  expression,"  as  he  calls  it, 
and  declares  that  he  "should  not  have  ap- 
peared in  print  in  these  Baptismal  contro- 
versies." But  he  nowhere  stated  that  dipping 
began  in  1641,  and  h6  declares  that  "the  Na- 
tion hath  had  experience  of  theeje"  Anabap- 
tists "for  many  years." 

He  says  in  his  book,  "Water  Dipping  no 
Firm  Footing  for  Church  Communion,"  Lon- 
don, 1658:  "First  we  understand  by  books  and 
writings  of  such  authority  and  credit;  that  we 
have  no  ground  at  all  to  question  their  truth 


135 

that  that  goii'^ration  of  men,  whose  judgments 
have  gone  wandering  after  Dipping  and  Re- 
baptising,  have  from  the  very  first  original  and 
spring  of  them  since  the  late  Reformation, 
been  very  troublesome  and  turbulent  in  all 
places  where  tliey  have  encreased  to  any  num- 
bers considerable ;  and  wiser  men  than  I  are 
not  a  little  jealous  over  the  peace  of  this  na- 
tion, lest  it  should  suffer,  as  other  places  for- 
merly have  done,  from  the  tumultuous  and 
domineering  spirit  of  this  sort  of  men  so  nu- 
merously prevailing  as  they  do"  (pp.  37,  38). 

And  on  p.  40-41  he  declares  that  Nicholas 
Stork  was  "dipped,"  and  that  the  first  Ana- 
tists  of  "this  nation,"  whoever  they  were,  bap- 
tized others  after  "that  exotique  mode." 
Goodwin,  however,  fixes  the  date  of  the  be- 
ginning of  immersion  among  the  Anabaptists 
in  1521.  He  says:  "Whether  since  the  first  in- 
vention and  practice  of  your  way  in  later  times, 
which  according  to  Sculitus,  who  wrote  the 
history  of  the  Reformation  of  Christian  Re- 
ligion by  Luther,  and  other  his  assistants  (par- 
takers of  the  same  grace  with  him  therein)  was 
in  the  year  1521  men  of  your  judgment,  wher- 
ever (almost)  they  have  come,  have  not  ob- 
structed the  course  and  proceedings  of  the 
Gospel,  opposed  troubled,  defamed,  the  most 
faithful  and  worthy  instruments  of  Christ,  in 
the  work  of  Reformation,  and  upon  this  ac- 
count been  complained  of  by  them"  (pp.  xv,, 
xvi.) 

And  yet  this  "Grasshopper  expression,"  for 
which  the  Baptists  made  Goodwin  apologize, 
is  the  one  that  is  peddled  around  by  some  Bap- 
tists of  our  time,  and  we  are  asked  to  believe 
on  the  authority  of  Goodwin  that  dipping  was 
a  bran  new  thing  in  1655,  when  Goodwin 
himself  says  dipping  began  among  the 
Anabaptists  in  1521.  It  is  strange  that 
there  are  those  among  us  who  not  only  seem 
anxious  to  rake  up  every  old  slander  that  they 


136 

can  find  against  tb«  Baptists,  but  who  lilce- 
wise  are  exceeuingiy  auxiuus  to  prove  ttiat  the 
Baptists  did  sprinkle,  aud,  moreover,  who  re- 
sent any  instance  that  is  pointed  out  where 
Baptists  immersed.  Thomas  Lamb  and  Wil- 
liam Allen  would  tiot  let  an  instance  of  this 
kind  go  by  without  rebuke.  They  knew  bet- 
ter. Long  before  1641  Thomas  Lamb  dipped 
converts,  and  long  before  the  times  of  Thon"if»s 
Lamb  our  Baptist  forefathers  did  the  same 
thing. 

xni. 

The  most  elaborate  and  sometimes  the  most 
far-fetched  arguments  have  been  offered  to 
sustain  this  date  of  1641  and  Richard  Blunt's 
trip  to  Holland.  A  writer  of  1642-3,  by  the 
name  of  P.  B.,  which  initials  have  been  inter- 
preted to  mear.  Praise  God  Barebone  has  fig- 
ured largely  in  these  calculations,  and  the 
most  amazing  arguments  have  been  put  forth 
as  to  his  teaching.  In  order  to  be  absolut^-Iy 
fair  I  give  two  rather  lengthy  extracts  setting 
forth  this  claim :  ''It  is  likely  that  Barebone 
knew  personally  every  member  of  Jessey's 
Church  and  had  canvassed  them  over  aiiid 
over  again  during  the  schism  which  he  pro- 
duced in  May,  1640.  There  can  be  little  ques- 
tion that  he  knew  Mr.  Richard  Blunt  by  heart. 
He  may  indeed  have  heard  something  of  the 
project  to  send  him  into  Holland  that  he 
might  fetch  immersion  over  seas.  At  any  rate 
when  that  practice  was  introduced  among 
them  in  the  year  1641 — 'the  yeare  of  jubilee' 
— Mr.  Barebone  got  upon  the  track  of  it  almost 
as  soon  as  anybody  else  in  England.  This 
marked  change  struck  him  very  forcibly, 
since  adult  immersion  was  unknown  in  Eng- 
land in  1640. 

"The  above  treatise  of  Mr.  Barebone  appar- 
ently met  a  speedy  reply  from  the  very  man 
who  of  all  others  we  should  expect  to  enter 


187 

the  list  against  him.  Richard  jJlunt,  who  had 
gone  to  Holland  to  obtain  immersion  took  up 
his  pen  and  probably  before  the  close  of  the 
year  1642  issued  a  printed  work  which  up  to 
this  moment,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  not  been 
recovered.  It  might  throw  a  desirable  light 
on  these  discussions  if  it  could  be  produced, 
and  it  is  worthy  of  diligent  search  in  many  li- 
braries. Its  exact  title  cannot  be  given :  all 
that  we  know  of  it  is  found  in  the  following 
work  by  P.  B[arebone] :  A  Reply  to  the  Friv- 
olous and  impertinent  Aiiswer  of  B.  JB.  to  the 
Discourse  of  P.B.,  in  which  Discourse  is  shewed 
that  the  Baptisme  in  the  Defection  of  Anti- 
christ is  the  ordinance  of  God,  notwithstand- 
ing the  corruptions  that  attend  the  same,  and 
that  the  Baptisme  of  Infants  is  lawful,  both  of 
which  are  vindicated  from  the  exceptions  of 
R.  B.,  and  further  cleared  by  the  same  author 
[i.e.,P.B.]"  (Quest,  in  Baptist  History,  108,8,9). 
This  statement  shows  a  singular  ignorance 
of  facts.  Mr.  Barebones  did  not  know  "Rich- 
ard Blunt  by  heart"  for  the  best  of  reasons, 
for  if  he  had  ever  heard  of  such  a  man  he  does 
not  mention  him,  and  consequently  he  never 
replied  to  anything  he  had  to  say.  And  as  to 
Richard  Blunt,  who  "had  gone  to  Holland  to 
obtain  immersion,"  taking  "up  his  pen  and 
probably  before  the  year  1642"  issuing  "a 
printed  work,"  is  not  even  an  "ingenius 
guess."  This  book  that  the  above  writer 
thought  was  lost  "has  been  recovered,"  and 
there  is  no  further  need  "for  diligent  search 
in  many  libraries;"  "its  exact  title  can  be 
given,"  and,  as  might  be  expected,  the  auth- 
or's name  is  not  Richard  Blunt,  but  his  name 
is  R.  Barrow.  The  book  lies  before  me  as  I 
write,  and  this  is  the  exact  title:  "A  Briefe 
Answer  to  a  Discourse  Lately  Written  by  one 
P.  B.  To  Prove  Baptisme  under  the  defection 
of  Antichi-ist,  to  be  the  Ordinance  of  JESUS 
CHRIST,  and  The  Baptizing  of  Infants  to  be 


138 

agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God.  Wherein  is 
declared  (from  his  owu  ground)  that  tlie  Bap- 
tisme,  and  a  false  Churcli  is  inconsistent,  and 
cannot  stand  together;  and  also  maintained, 
That  the  Baptizing  of  Infants  hath  no  author- 
ity from  the  Scriptures.  Tlie  simple  beleeveth  ev- 
ery Word:  but  the  prudent  man  looketh  well  to  his 
goings.  Prov.  14.15.  By  R.  Barrow.  London, 
Printed  in  the  yeere  1642."  This  one  state- 
ment that  R.  B.  is  R.  Barrow  and  not  Richard 
Blunt,  sweeps  away  whole  pages  of  argument, 
and  recalls  to  us  the  truth  that  "an  ounce  of 
fact  is  worth  a  ton  of  theory." 

R.  Barrow,  like  all  Baptists  are,  and  were, 
was  a  straight-along  immersionist.  His  book 
appears  to  have  very  much  exasperated  Praise 
God  Barebones,  who  replied  in  1643  with  much 
heat.  Barebones  declares  tliat  Barrow  had 
already  been  dipped  three  times,  and  was 
seeking  a  fourth  immersion,  for  Barrow  was 
disturbed  on  the  subject  of  a  proper  adminis- 
trator of  baptism.  The  question  of  immersion 
did  not  trouble  him,  for  he  had  already  in  1643 
been  dipped  three  times,  and  was  seeking  a 
fourth  dipping  (pp.  v.,  vi.)  Barebones  does 
not  know  of  any  one  who  had  been  to  Holland 
for  baptism,  for  he  tells  Barrow  that  if  he  was 
not  satisfied  with  his  baptism,  to  go  to  Hol- 
land to  get  an  administrator.  His  words  are: 
"There  were  baptized  persons  in  Holland  of  an 
hundred  yeers  descent  and  inore,  to  have  re- 
paired thither  were  more  easie,  then  for  the 
Eunuch  to  have  gone  to  Jerusalem:  as  easie 
as  it  was,  for  them  to  have  gone  thither,  as  for 
our  Lord  to  have  gone  over  Jordan  to  John." 
He  adds  that  tliis  would  not  be  altogetlier 
agreeable  to  Barrow  since  "if  R.  B.  question 
their  baptisme,  it  is  much:  happily  he  may, 
because  they  practise  not  totall  dipping"  (pp. 
18,  19).  It  is  therefore  evident  t-hat  Praise  God 
Barebones  knew  no  one  that  liad  been  to  Hol- 
land for  baptism,  and  that  while  he  suggests 


139 

such  a  course,  he  did  not  think  it  would  be  en- 
tirely satisfaciory.  Barebones  further  declares 
that  Barrow's  opinion  was  so  rare  and  singular 
that  only  two  or  three  churches  believed  in  it 
(p.  30).  Barebones  becomes,  not  a  witness  in 
favor  of  Blunt's  trip  to  Holland,  but  a  witness 
who  states,  singularly  enough,  that  the  Bap- 
tists of  England  had  not  received  their  baptism 
from  Holland.  The  witness, who  was  declared 
to  be  none  other  than  the  original  Richard 
Blunt,  turns  out  not  to  be  Richard  Blunt  at 
all,  and  Praise  God  Barebones,  who  "knew 
Richard  Blunt  by  heart,"  knew  nothing  about 
him,  and  this  excellent  witness  who  was  to 
throw  so  much  light  on  the  subject,  when  duly 
examined  testifies  on  the  other  side.  Rather 
than  spend  my  time  in  speculating  what  a  man 
would  say  if  he  could  be  found,  and  putting 
words  in  his  mouth  that  he  never  uttered,  I 
went  to  work,  brought  the  witness  forward  and 
let  him  tell  his  own  story.  That  was  supposed 
to  be  the  last  thing  needed  to  establish  the 
authenticity  of  the "Kiffin"  Manuscript.  Here, 
as  everywhere  else,  the  facts  are  against  that 
document.  The  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  and  the 
Jessey  Records  always  collapse  when  the  facts 
are  told. 

The  conclusion  that  the  Anabaptists  prac- 
ticed dipping  before  January,  1642,  may  be 
reached  in  another  way.  I  have  a  little  book 
called:  "An  Anabaptist  Sermon  which  was 
preached  at  the  Re-baptizing  of  a  Brother  at 
the  new  or  holy  Jordan,  as  they  call  it,  near 
Bow,  or  Hackney  River;  together  with  the 
manner  how  they  used  to  perform  their  Aua- 
baptisticall  Ceremonies.  London,  1643."  It 
is  worth  while  to  note  that  this  report  was 
written  by  an  enemy,  who  refers  to  the  Ana- 
baptists as  "they."  It  will  also  be  noted  that 
it  describes  a  past  event,  and  that  the  bap- 
tism was  at  some  considerable  time  before 
1643,  for  the  writer  says  that  it  was  "the  man- 


140 

ner  they  use  to  perform  their  Anabaptisticall 
ceremonies."  The  only  point,  however,  that  I 
wish  to  especially  emphasize  is  that  the  Hack- 
ney River  "was  the  baptizing  place,  ''the  new 
Jordan,"  where  these  Anabaptists  dipped  their 
candidates.  Remember  that  the  Gould  "Kif- 
fin"  Manuscript  declares  that  Blunt  performed 
his  immersion  in  January,  1642.  But  I  have 
another  book  called  "The  Booke  of  common 
Prayer.  .  ,  vindicated  from  the  aspersion  of 
all  Schismatiques,  Anabaptists,  &c. .  .  Togeth- 
er with  a  discovery  of  the  sort  of  people  called 
Rebaptists,  lately  found  out  in  Hackney 
Marsh,  neere  London."  This  book  warf  writ- 
ten in  1641,  some  months  before  the  '-Kiffln" 
Manuscript  says  Blunt  returned  from  Holland. 
The  following  is  an  account  of  the  Hackney 
Marsh  transaction,  the  New  Jordan,  the  dip- 
ping place  of  the  Baptists,  before  Blunt  had 
returned  from  Holland  and  instituted  immer- 
sion: "The  discovery  of  abase  sect  of  people 
called  Rebaptists,  lately  found  out  in  Hackney 
Marsh  neere  London. 

"About  a  Fortnight  since  a  great  multitude 
of  people  were  met  going  toward  the  river  in 
Hackney  Marsh  and  were  followed  to  the 
water  side,  where  they  were  all  baptized 
againe,  themselves  doing  it  to  one  another, 
some  of  which  persons  were  too  feeble  and 
aged  that  they  were  fayne  to  Ride  on  horse- 
back thithere  this  was  wel  observed,"  &c.  (pp. 
9, 10) .  Here  comes  very  nearly  being  the  name 
Baptist,  that  we  have  so  often  heard  was  not 
in  use  till  some  time  after,  for  these  peo^jle 
were  called  Re-baptists.  It  is  such  a  pity  that 
these  Baptists  would  insist  upon  dipping  be- 
fore they  heard  of  Blunt  and  of  his  trip  to 
Holland !  It  was  my  pleasure  to  preach  to  a  Bap- 
tist church  near  Hackney  Swamp  the  past  sum- 
mer, which  was  organized  before  1641,  and  may 
have  been  the  very  church  referred  to  in  the 
above  narrative.    It  is  also  a  fact  that  Spils- 


bury's  church  was  located  near  the  Hackney- 
river,  and  that  river  was  doubtless  the  baptiz- 
ing place  for  that  congregation.  The  Spils- 
bury  church  had  existed  from,  or  probably  be- 
fore, 1633;  and  like  all  Baptist  churches  had  a 
convenient  place  for  immersions. 

This  Lathrop  church  had  much  trouble  on 
the  subject  of  immersion.  Some  of  the  mem- 
bers seceded  and  went  over  to  John  Spilsbury 
in  1633,  and  the  agitation  kept  up  till  he  went 
to  America,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  it  did  not 
then  close.  If  Lathrop  had  hoped  to  free  him- 
self from  this  immersion  controversy  when  he 
came  to  America,  he  was  to  be  disappointed. 
He  brought  quite  a  number  of  persons  over 
with  him.  He  and  the  church  located  at  Scit- 
uate,Mass.,  where  Lathrop  remained  pastor 
till  1639.  On  his  settlement  the  immersion  con- 
troversy broke  out  immediately.  Dean,  who 
was  a  very  able  historian  and  editor  of  a  num- 
ber of  the  works  of  the  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  says:  "Controversy  respecting 
the  mode  of  baptism  had  been  agitated  in  Mr. 
Lathrop 's  church  before  he  left  England,  and 
a  part  had  separated  from  him  and  established 
the  first  Baptist  (Calvinistic)  church  In  Eng- 
land in  1633.  Those  that  came  seem  not  all  to 
have  been  settled  on  this  point,  and  they 
found  others  in  Scituate  ready  to  symjDathize 
with  them." 

In  1639  Lathrop  removed  to  Barnstable  with 
a  number  of  his  members  and  formed  a  new 
church.  A  majority,  however,  of  those  who 
remained  In  Scituate  believed  in  immersion, 
and  Dean  says  that  some  believed  in  "adult 
immersion  exclusively."  Here,  then,  is  im- 
mersion and  adult  immersion  exclusively  in 
this  American  Lathrop  church  before  1639. 
Not  only  so,  when  this  church  came  to  call  a 
pastor  to  succeed  Mr.  Lathrop,  they  called  an 
avowed  immersionist  as  pastor,  Mr.  Chauncy. 
Fortunately    we    are    not    at  a  loss    for  Mr. 


142 

Chauncy's  views.  Felt  says  of  Chauncy,  July 
7,1642:  "Chauncy  at  Scituate  still  adheres  to 
his  practice  of  immersion.  He  had  baptized 
two  of  his  own  children  in  this  way.  A  wom- 
an of  his  congregation  who  had  a  child  of 
three  years  old,  and  wished  it  to  receive  such 
an  ordinance,  was  fearful  that  it  might  be  too 
much  frightened  by  being  dipped  as  some  had 
been.  She  desired  a  letter  from  him,  recom- 
mending her  to  the  Boston  Church,  so  that  she 
might  have  the  child  sprinkled.  He  complied 
and  the  rite  was  accordingly  administered" 
(Felt's  Eccl.  Hist.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  497). 

Think  for  a  moment  how  powerful  and  direct 
this  evidence  is.  Here  is  John  Lathrop  who 
was  pastor  of  this  Jacob  church  in  London. 
His  church  divides,  and  part  of  it  becomes 
Baptist  by  joining  with  John  Spilsbury  in  1633 ; 
there  was  another  secession  to  John  Spilsbury 
in  1638.  In  the  meantime  John  Lathrop  and 
a  part  of  this  churcli  has  settled  in  New  Eng- 
land, and  this  same  immersion  controversy 
breaks  out  there.  There  were  some  who  be- 
lieved in  "adult  immersion  exclusively,"  and 
when  Mr.  Lathrop  resigned  this  church  called 
to  its  pastorate  a  noted  immersionist.  Mark 
you  tliat  tills  was  not  a  Baptist  church  but  an 
Independent  church,  and  the  very  one  the 
Gould  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  declares  never 
•  heard  of  immersion  of  believers  till  1641.  But 
we  furthermore  reach  the  conclusion  that  the 
Baptists  were  immersionists  as  they  have  al- 
ways been.  I  should  immensely  rather  trust 
tlie  facts  in  the  case  than  to  tie  myself  blindly 
to  the  so-called  "Kiffln"  Manuscript,  a  docu- 
ment of  which  no  one  knows  its  origin  and 
which  has  been  proved  false  in  almost  every 
particular. 

We  happen  to  have  another  direct  proof  of 
immersion  in  this  Jessey  church  in  London 
before  1641.  I  have  a  book  called  "To  Sions 
Virgins."    This  edition  was  printed    in   1644. 


There  was  an  earlier  edition,  because  the  title 
page  tells  us  that  this  catechism,  for  that  is 
what  the  book  is,  "is  in  use  in  these  times." 
We  are  pretty  well  able  to  locate  its  exact 
date.  It  was  written  after  Sept.  18, 1634,  for  it 
declares  that  "Mr.  John  Lathroppe"  was  "now 
pastor  in  America,"  and  that  was  the  date  of 
Mr.  Lathroppe's  arrival  in  America.  And  it 
was  before  1637  when  Mr.  Jessey  was  called  to 
the  care  of  the  church,  for  the  church  was  en- 
gaged in  prayer  for  a  pastor,  and  Mr.  Jessey 
continued  pastor  until  after  1644.  The  date, 
then,  was  1634-7.  But  this  church  at  that  date 
had  already  had  great  disturbance  on  the  sub- 
ject of  believers' immersion.  The  writer  of  this 
book,  who  declares  that  he  is  "an  antient  mem- 
ber" of  the  Lathrop  church,  makes  the  state- 
ment that  we  should  avoid  "those  that  make 
divisions,"  and  then  continues:  "I  desire  to 
manifest  in  defence  of  the  Baptisme  and  forme 
we  have  received,  not  being  easily  moved,  but 
as  Christ  will  more  manifest  himself,  which  I 
cannot  conceive  to  bee  in  the  dipping  the  head, 
the  creature  going  in  and  out  of  the  water,  the 
forme  of  baptisme  doth  more  or  lesse  hold 
forth  Christ.  And  it  is  a  sad  thing  that  the 
citizens  of  Zion,  should  have  their  children 
born  foreigners  not  to  be  baptized,"  &c.  Now 
here  is  a  direct  statement  of  immersion  and 
believers' baptisms  long  before  1641.  Then  on 
p.  18  it  is  asked :  "Then  sayes  such  as  be  called 
Anabaptists,  &c.  and  this  answer  is  given  in 
part:  'Wherefore  let  such  as  deny  infants  bap- 
tisme, and  goe  into  the  water  and  dip  downe 
the  head  and  come  out  to  shew  death  and 
buriall,  take  heede  they  take  not  the  name 
of  the  Lord  in  vaine,  more  especially 
such  as  have  received  baptisme  in  their  in- 
fancy.'" 

I  cannot  conceive  how  there  could  be  a  more 
appropriate  witness.  He  was  a  member  of 
this  Lathrop  or  Jessey  church,  he  was  an  "an- 


144 

cient  member,"  and  he  certainly  knew  what 
he  was  talking  about.  He  testifies  directly 
that  believers'  immersion  was  then  practiced 
by  persons  who  had  been  members  of  this  very 
congregation,  and  at  that  very  moment  these 
persons  were  causing  divisions  on  account  of 
believers'  immersion.  And  yet  in  the  face  of 
this  kind  of  a  witness  lam  asked  to  believe  this 
"KifRn"  Manuscript,  which  professes  to  be  an 
account  of  this  very  church,  and  that  says  that 
none  in  England  practiced  believers'  immer- 
sion before  1642.  The  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  is 
not  even  a  respectable  forgery. 

XIV. 

We  will  now  notice  the  names  of  those  who 
were  reported  to  have  been  baptized  as  re- 
corded in  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript.  The  list 
is  as  follows : 


"The  names  of  all  11 

1  Richard  Blunt 

2  Greg  Fishburn 

3  John  Caldwell, 
3  Sam  Eames 

6  Thos.  Kilcop 

6  Robert  Locker 

7  John  Braunson 

8  Rich.  Ellis, 


9  Wm.  Creak, 

10  Robt.  Carr, 

11  Martin  Mainprise 

12  Henry  Woolmare 
IB  Henry  Creak, 

16  Mark.  Lukar 

17  Henry  Darker 

13  Robert  King, 

14  Thomas  Waters 


MO  Janu :  Begin 
Sam  Blacklock 
Dere.  Fishburn 
Eliz.  Cadwell 
Tho.  Munden, 
William  Willieby 
Mary  Lock 
John  Bull 
Mary  Langride. 
Tho.  Shephard  ) 
Hus  wife  \ 

Mary  Millison 
Mary  Haman, 
Sarah  Williams, 
Joane 
Anne 
Eliz.  Woolmore, 
Judeth  Manning 
Mabel  Luker, 
Abigal  Bowden, 
Sarah  Norman, 
Isabel  Woolmore, 


Dunckle 


145 

Eliz.  Jessop  Mary  Creak 

Susanna  King 
41  in  all 
11th  month  — '       11  January  9  added 
understood  John  Cattope      George  Wenham 
as  appears  Nicholas  Martin  Thomas  Davenant 
above !  &      Ailie  Stanford     Rich  Colgrave 
this  was       Nath  Natthon     Eliz.  Hutchinson 
Jan.  9th        Mary  Birch  John  Croson 

Sybilla  Dees 
John  Woolmore. 
Thus  53  in  all." 

I  would  call  attention  to  the  date.  This 
baptism  was  in  January,  1642,  and  it  was  in 
the  early  part  of  January,  for  upon  the  "9"  of 
that  month  12  other  persons  were  added  to 
this  nuDQber.  That  is  to  say,  that  after  all, 
even  according  to  the  Gould  "KifiBn"  Manu- 
script, immersion  was  not  revived  in  England 
in  1641,  but  in  1642  We  would  be  compelled 
"to  move  up  the  date  to"  1642  On  the  basis  of 
the  "KiflBn"  Manuscript  it  is  a  1642,  rather 
than  a  1641,  controversy. 

But  look  at  that  list  of  names  who  were  said 
to  have  been  baptized  by  Blunt  and  tell  us  how 
many  prominent  Baptists  were  in  the  list.  If 
these  persons  were  immersed  at  this  time,  what 
about  all  the  other  leading  Baptists  before  and 
after  this  date?  There  is  nothing  to  prove 
that  one  of  them  was  immersed  at  or  near  this 
time.  Read  carefully  over  the  |above  list, 
and  then  read  the  following  words  of  the  New 
YoT'k  Independent  on  this  1641  theory:  "If  im- 
mersion was  introduced,  as  we  suppose,  in  1641, 
then  it  is  clear  that  John  Spilsbury,  who  be- 
came a  Baptist  in  1633,  was  sprinkled  or  poured 
upon;  likewise  Mr.  Kiffin,  who  became  a  Bap- 
tist in  1638;  likewise  Roger  Williams  and  his 
church  at  Providence,  who  joined  the  Baptists 
in  1639;  likewise  Mr.  Clark  and  the  church 
at  Newport,  who,  we  must  believe,  joined  the 

10 


146 

Baptists  very  shortly  after  Mr. Williams.  The 
year  1644,  which  is  mentioned  as  tlie  date 
when  'the  First  Baptist  church  at  Newport 
was  formed  and  set  in  order,'  we  are  inclined 
to  think  was  the  time  when  the  church  accept- 
ed and  began  the  practice  of  immersion." — N. 
Y.  Independent,  Oct.  7th,  1880. 

This  statement  is  wide  of  the  mark,  and  is 
not  based  even  upon  the  "Kiffln"  Manuscript. 
That  document  is  false  and  unauthoritative 
enoug'h,but  it  has  never  made  a  statement 
like  that.  I  challenge  the  IndAppudent  to  make 
good  this  statement.  The  "Kiffln"  Manu- 
script does  not  intimate  that  John  Spilsbury 
was  sprinkled  in  1633  and  afterwards  dipped  in 
1641.  It  does  not  say  that  Kiffln,  "who  became 
a  Baptist  in  1638,"  was  poured  upon.  Nor  does 
it  evenmention  Roger  Williams, nor  Mr.  Clark, 
nor  the  first  Baptist  church  of  Provide^ice,  nor 
the  first  Baptist  church  of  Newport.  There  is 
no  proof  that  these  men  were  sprinkled  by 
anybody  to  make  them  Baptists. 

If  we  are  to  believe  the  account  of  the  bap- 
tisin  as  given  in  the  "Kiffln"  Manuscript,  then 
not  one  of  the  great  Baptist  leaders  of  1641  had 
anything  to  do  with  it.     Let  us  see. 

William  Kiffln  had  nothing  to  do  with  this 
procedure,  nor  was  he  baptized  by  Blacklock 
and  Blunt.  His  baptism  came  from  some 
other  source.  John  Spilsbury  was  not  strict 
enough  for  William  Kiffln.  Although  John 
Spilsbury  practiced  immersion,  shortly  after 
1638  Kiffln  separated  himself  from  this  church 
because  this  church  occasionally  admitted  a 
minister  to  preach  for  it  who  had  not  been  im- 
mersed. He  was,  in  other  words,  a  Landmark 
Baptist.  Crosby  says :  "He  was  first  of  an  In- 
dependent congregation,  and  called  to  the  min- 
istry among  them ;  was  one  of  them  who  were 
concerned  in  the  conferences  held  in  the  con- 
gregation of  Mr.  Henry  Jtssey;  by  which  Mr. 
Jessey  and  the  greatest  part  of  the  congregation 


became  proselyted  to  the  opinion  of  the  Bap- 
tists. He  joined  himself  to  the  church  of  Mr, 
John  Snilshury,  but  a  difference  arising  about 
permitting  persons  to  preach  amongst  them 
that  had  not  been  baptized  by  imn^rsion,  they 
parted  bv  consent"  (History  of  the  Baptist8> 
Vol.  III.;  p.  3-4). 

Samu«l  Richardson  had  nothing  to  do  with 
this  Blunt  affair.  His  baptism  came  from 
some  other  source. 

John  Spilsbury  was  not  baptized  by  Blunt. 
He  owed  his  baptism  to  another  administrator. 

Paul  Hobson  was  not  baptized  by  Blunt.  He 
was  baptized  by  another. 

The  same  is  true  of  Thomas  Lamb. 

Edward  Barber  was  not  baptized  by  Blunt. 
He  was  baptized  years  before. 

Hanserd  Knollys  was  not  baptized  by  Blunt. 
He  owed  his  baptism  to  another  administrator. 

Crosby  was  therefore  quite  right  when  he 
affirmed:  "But  the  greatest  number  of  Eng- 
lish Baptists  looked  upon  all  of  this  as  needless 
trouble,  and  what  proceeded  from  the  old 
Popish  Doctrine  of  right  to  administer  sacra- 
ments by  an  uninterrupted  succession  which 
neither  the  Church  of  Rome,  nor  the  Church 
of  England,  much  less  the  modern  Dissenters, 
cduld  prove  to  be  with  them"  (Vol.  I.,  p.  103). 

Look  at  those  who  were  declared  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript. 

Nobody  ever  heard  of  Blunt  in  or  about  1641. 
So  far  as  history  records,  he  was  a  myth. 

Nobody  ever  heard  of  Blacklock.  He  is  an- 
other myth,  so  far  as  history  records. 

There  is  Thomas  Shepherd!  History  does 
speak  of  him,  but  he  was  a  Congregational 
preacher  at  that  moment  in  Boston ;  and  he 
had  not  been  in  England  for  years,  and,  so  far 
as  I  know,  he  never  was  in  London. 

Yet  this  is  the  crowd  we  are  asked  to  be- 
lieve started  immersion  among  the  Baptists  in 
1641!! 


148 

The  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  makes  the  follow- 
ing statements  concerning  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  1643- 

"1644.    Those  being  much  spoken  against  as 

being  unsound  in  doctrine  as  if  they 

were    Armenians     &     also     against 

See  ye        Magistrates  &c,  they  joyned  togeath- 

ve*coii^^     er  in  a  Confession  of  their  Faith  in 

lession.      fifty-two    Articles   wch   gave    great 

satisfaction  to  many  that  had  been 

prejudiced. 

Thus  subscribed  in  ye  names  of  7  Churches 

in  London. 

Willn  Kiffin  Thos.  Gunn     Paul  Hobson 

Tho.  Patience        Jos.  Mabbet    Tho:  Goore 
Geo.  Tipping        John  Web,      Jo.  Phelps 
John  Spilsbury     Tho.  Kilcop    Edward  Heath 
Thos.  Shephard, 
Tho:  Munder." 

So  ignorant  was  the  writer  of  the  Gould 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript  of  Baptist  affairs  that  he 
did  not  know  that  this  Confession  of  Faith 
was  put  forth  in  1643,  and  not  in  1644. 

If  the  author  of  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  is 
wrong  on  the  date  of  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
he  is  also  wrong  in  regard  to  the  persons  who 
signed  it.  I  copy  the  names  directly  from  the 
Confession  itself :"  William  Kiffin, Thomas  Pa- 
tience, John  Spilsbery,  George  Tipping,  Sam- 
uel Richardson,  Thomas  Skippard,  Thomas 
Mundy,  Thomas  Gunne,  John  Mabbatt,  John 
Webb,  Thomas  Killcop,  Paul  Hobson,  Thom- 
as Goare,  Joseph  Phelps,  Edward  Heath"  (B. 
M.  E.12.  (24)). 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  compiler  who  made 
this  "collection  in  1710-11,"  or  some  other  time, 
has  taken  the  privilege  to  "doctor"  the  facts. 
He  follows  his  own  method  of  spelling  here  as 
everywhere  else,  and  hence  does  not  get  the 
names  correctly.  Neither  does  he  get  the 
names  in  the  right  order.    But  what  is  worse, 


149 

he  leaves  out  the  name  of  Samuel  Richardson 
altogether.  He  was  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent Baptists  of  those  times  and  a  great  writ- 
er. Yet  the  "Kiifin"  Manuscript,  "a  contem- 
poraneous record,"  "a  genuine  church  record," 
knows  nothing  about  him.  The  closest  the 
"KiflBn"  Manuscript  can  come  to  Thomas 
Munday  is  Tho:  Munder,  and  John  Mabbatt 
becomes  Jos.  Mabbet. 

But  the  most  curious  thing  is  yet  to  be  men- 
tioned. Thomas  Shephard  is  represented  as 
signing  the  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith.  He 
was  then,  and  had  been  for  nine  years,  a  Con- 
gregational preacher  in  Boston,  and,  so  far  as 
I  know,  he  never  returned  to  England.  He 
was  not  only  not  a  Baptist,  but  a  bitter  op- 
ponent of  them.  One  year  from  the  date  the 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript  represents  Thomas  Shep- 
hard as  signing  a  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith, 
we  find  hina  writing  an  introduction  to  a  book 
written  by  George  Philips  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism  and  sprinkling,  in  answer  to  Thomas 
Lamb,  the  English  Baptist  minister.  This  book 
was  published  in  England  in  1645.  In  that  intro- 
duction he  complains  that  "the  doctrine  of 
Anabaptisme  especially  in  this  controversie 
concerning  Infants,  will  gangrene  farre,  and 
leaven  much."  This  is  no  mere  misprint  for  this 
same  Thomas  Shephard,  as  has  been  clainaed,, 
for  that  document  represents  him  as  baptized 
by  Blunt  on  his  return.  It  will  not  relieve  the 
' '  Kiffin  "  Manuscr  ipt  to  say ,  as  has  already  been 
said ,  that  it  was  not  this  Thomas  Shephard,  but 
another,  who  was  a  Baptist.  The  trouble  with 
this  is  that  there  is  not  one  particle  of  evidence 
to  support  it.  Thomas  Shephard  did  not  sign 
the  Baptist  Confession  of  P'aith,  published  in 
1644,  as  the  Gould  manuscripts  assert.  This  is 
a  fabrication  pure  and  simple.  But  this  is  as 
authentic  as  anything  else  in  the  "Kiffln" 
Manuscript. 

But  we  have  still  other  jaroof  of  the  unreli- 


150 

ability  of  this  "Kiffin"  Manuscript.  In  Janu- 
ary, 1640,  two  of  the  persons  who  signed  the 
Confession  of  Faith  were  already  Baptists.  The 
names  of  these  two  men  were  John  Webb  and 
Thomas  Gunn.  They  were  arrested  and  brought 
before  the  House  of  Lords  on  that  date  for  being 
Baptists  (Journal  of  House  of  Lords,  vol.  4,  p. 
13.  A.  D.  1639-40).  The  Journal  says:  "Ana- 
baptists recommended  to  the  justice  of  the 
House  by  his  majesty."  Six  names  are  men- 
tioned, in  which  number  are  the  two  above, 
and  there  were  at  "least  sixty  People  more." 
It  is  significant  that  not  one  of  these  six  per- 
sons is  found  among  the  persons  baptized  by 
Blunt  in  the  list  recorded  in  the  Gould  docu- 
ment, and  two  of  this  number  signed  the  Bap- 
tist Confession  of  Faith.  Bluntism  did  not 
make  much  progress  among  the  Baptists  of 
1641 ! ! ! !  I 

The  Gould  Document  Number  4  makes  this 
absurd  statement  in  regard  to  Hanserd  Knol- 
lys: 

"1643.        About  Bap tisnae,  Qu:  Ans: 

Honserd  Knollys  our  Brother  not 
being  satisfied  for  Baptizing  his  child,  after  it 
had  been  endeavored  by  ye  elder  &  by  one  or 
two  more ;  himself  referred  to  ye  Church  then 
that  they  might  satisfye  him,  or  he  rectifye 
them  if  amiss  herein,  which  was  well  ac- 
cepted. 

"Hence  meetings  were  appointed  for  confer- 
ence about  it  at  B.  Ja:  «&;  B.  K.  &  B.  G.  &  each 
was  performed  with  prayer  &  in  much  Love  as 
Christian  meetings  (because  he  could  not  sub- 
mit his  judgment  to  depend  on  with  its  power: 
So  yielded  to)  Elder  The  maine  argument 

was  from  these  fower  conclusions. 

"1.  Those  in  Gospel  institutions  are  so  set 
down  to  us.  those  not  cleare 

"2.  Whatever  Priviiedg  God  hath  given  to 
his  Church  is  still  given  to  all  churches. 

"3.  God  hath  given  to  his  Church  as  a  Church 


151 

this  Privilege  to  have  their  children  in  a  Gos- 
pel covenant,  &  to  have  its   token  in  Infancy- 
Gen.  17.  7.  10. 
"4.    Baptism  seems  to  be  in  ye  rome  oi  Cir- 
cumcision 

To  be  now  to  Churches  Infants." 

Every  fact  known  in  regard  to  KnoUys  goes 
to  prove  that  this  statement  is  not  true.  The 
Rev.  John  Lewis,  who  replied  to  Crosby's 
History,  aflQrms  that  Knollys  rejected  infant 
baptism  as  early  as  1636  (Rawlinson  Mss.  C. 
409.  p.  62).  Crosby  declares  that  he  was  a 
Baptist  in  1636.  He  came  to  America  in  1636 
and  settled  in  New  Hampshire,  and  returned 
to  England  in  (?)  1640.  While  in  America  he 
was  regarded  as  an  Anabaptist. 

Cotton  Mather  mentions  a  number  of  Bap- 
tists among  the  first  planters  of  New  England, 
and  that  some  ministers  of  that  persuasion 
came  over.  He  says  of  Hanserd  Knollys:  "Of 
them  there  were  some  godly  Anabaptists ;  as 
namely,  Mr.  Hanserd  Knollys  (whom  one  of 
his  adversaries  called  absurd  Kn(nnles'\  ,ot  Dover, 
who  afterwards  moved  back  to  London,  lately 
died  there,  a  good  man,  in  a  good  old  age" 
(Magnalia  Christi  Americana,  Vol.  I.,  p.  243. 
Hartford,  1855).     (Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  p.  120). 

He  wrote  an  autobiography  of  himself,  which 
was  edited  and  completed  by  William  Kiffin. 
Knollys  died  September  19,  1691,  and  from  the 
words  of  Kiflan  it  is  probable  that  he  became 
a  Baptist  as  early  as  1631.  Kiffin 's  words  are : 
''The  author  of  these  ensuing  experiences  was 
that  ancient  and  faithful  servant  of  God,  Mr. 
Hanserd  Knollys,  who  departed  this  life  in 
the  ninety-third  year  of  his  age,  having  been 
employed  in  the  works  and  service  of  Christ, 
as  a  faithful  minister,  for  above  sixty  years ;  in 
which  time  he  labored  without  fainting  under 
all  the  discouragement  that  attended  him,  be- 
ing contented  in  all  conditions,  though  never 


152 

BO  poor  in  this  world ;  under  all  persecutions 
and  sufferings,  so  that  he  might  therein  serve 
his  blessed  Lord  and  Saviour.  I  have  myself 
known  him  for  above  fifty  four  years,  and  can 
witness  to  the  truth  of  many  things  left  by 
him  uuder  his  own  hand"  (Life  and  Death  of 
Hanserd  Knollys,  p,  2.  London,  1692.  B.  M. 
1994.(1)). 

The  point  I  raise  is  a  definite  one.  The 
Gould  Document  number  4  declares  that  in 
1643  Hanserd  Knollys  was  a  Pedobaptist,  and 
gives  at  great  length  the  argument  that  satis- 
fled  his  mind  and  made  a  Baptist  out  of  him. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  present  indisputable 
authorities  who  declare  that  Hanserd  Knol- 
lys was  an  Anabaptist  as  far  back  as  1636,  and 
perhaps  1631.  The  proof  is  simply  overwhelm- 
ing, and  these  statements,  like  the  rest  of  the 
statements  of  these  Gould  documients,  are 
false. 

XV. 

THE  CONCLUSION, 

In  a  former  article,  Number  V.,  it  was  point- 
ed out  that  the  story  in  the  Gould  '-Kiffin" 
Manuscript  of  Sam  Eaton  was  absolutely  in- 
consistent with  the  Court  Records  and  the 
State  Papers  of  England.  It  was  demonstrat- 
ed that  not  one  of  the  things  related  of  him  in 
the  Gould  document  could  have  taken  place. 
Not  one  statement  there  made  needs  to  be 
modified,  but  my  attention  has  been  called  to 
an  important  additional  matter  which  goes  to 
show  that  Sam  Eaton  became  a  Baptist,  and 
that  he  was  immersed  by  John  Lathrop  be- 
tween April  24, 1634  and  May  6, 1636,  and  Sam 
Eaton  immersed  others.  This  information  is 
given  by  John  Taylor,  who  put  in  rliyme  the 
following : 

"Also  one  Spilsbury  rose  up  of  late, 
(Who  doth  or  did  dwell  over  Aldersgate) 


158 


He  rebaptiz'd  in  Anabaptist  fashion 
One  Eaton  (of  the  new  found  separation) 
A  Zealous  Button-maker,  grave  and  wise, 
And  gave  him  orders  others  to  baptize ; 
Who  was  so  apt  to  learne  that  in  one  day, 
Hee'd  do't  as  well  as  Spilsbury  weigh'd  Hay. 
This  true  Hay-lay-man  to  the  Bank  side  came 
And  likewise  there  baptized  an  impure  dame" 
&c.   (A  Swarme  of  Sectaries  and  Schis- 
matiques). 
This  was  published  in  London  probably  in 
1641.,  but  possibly  earlier.    It  is  admitted  that 
this  was  an  example  of  immersion  among  the 
Baptists.  Now  Sam  Eaton  died  in  prison  Aug. 
26, 1639  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  vol.  427,  fol. 
107).     Therefore    Spilsbury  immersed   Eaton 
before  Aug.  25, 16:59.    But  Sam  Eaton  immersed 
others.    He  was  in  jail  from  May  6, 1636,  con- 
tinuously till  his  death,  therefore  he  was  im- 
mersed before  1636,  and  he  also  immersed  oth- 
ers before  that  date.    This  simple  statement 
overthrows  the  entire  1641  theory,  and  demon- 
strates that  immersion  was  in  practice  more 
than  five  years  before  1641,  which  is  in  accord 
with  all  the  facts  in  the  case.    I  beg  to  present 
my  congratulations. 

This  additional  fact  permits  my  giving  a 
pretty  detailed  account  of  the  church  relations 
of  Sam  Eaton.  In  the  Court  Documents  which 
I  have  before  me  which  give  an  account  of  the 
trial  of  Lathi  op's  church,  April  29, 1632,  it  is 
shown  that  Sam  Eaton  was  a  member  of  the 
Lathrop,  or,  as  it  was  afterwards  called,  the 
Jessey  church.  He  continued  in  jail  until 
April  24, 1634,  when  he  was  released  from  pris- 
on under  the  same  bond  that  Lathrop  was 
(Calendar  of  State  Papers,  vol.  261,  fol.  182). 
After  this  date,  and  before  May  5, 1636,  he  was 
immersfid  by  John  Spilsbury,  for  that  was  the 
only  date  he  was  out  of  prison  until  his  death. 
The  record  of  this  second  imprisonment  is:: 
"Samuel  Eaton  of  St.  Gile's  without  Cripple 


Gate,  London,  button-maker"  (Calendar  of 
State  Papers,  vol.  324.  fol.  13).  Then  there  fol- 
lows a  petition,  the  exact  date  is  not  given,  of 
one  Francis  Tucker,  B.D.  He  complains  that 
Samuel  Eaton  is  an  unruly  fellow,  and  persists 
in  preaching  in  prison.  One  of  the  points  is 
that  "Eaton  has  oftentimes  affirmed  in  his 
sermons  that  baptism  was  the  doctrine  of  dev- 
ils, and  its  original  and  institution  of  the 
devil,  and  has  railed  against  the  arch-bishop," 
&c.  (Calendar  of  State  Papers,  vol.  406,  fol.  64). 
This  is  about  what  a  bigoted  Pedobaptist  of 
that  day  would  report  against  a  Baptist  who 
was  denouncing  infant  baptism  and  sprinkling. 
The  next  entry  in  the  Calendar  of  State  Pa- 
pers, vol.  437,  fol.  107,  where  there  is  an  ac- 
count of  his  death  under  date  of  Aug.  31, 16^9, 
which  occured  Sunday,  the  26th.  A  Mr.  Alsop 
reports  that  he  was  present  at  the  funeral,  and 
he  reports  that  he  met  the  Anabaptists,  and 
some  others,  "I  think  at  least  two  hundred, 
with  Eaton's  corpse,  so  I  went  back  with  them 
to  see  how  they  would  bury  the  dead.  I  ob- 
served how  they  answered  such  as  met  them, 
demanding  who  that  was  to  be  buried;  they 
said  it  was  one  of  the  bishop's  prisoners,  but 
when  they  came  to  the  grave,  it  being  made 
ready  for  them  in  the  new  church  yard  near 
Bethlehem  (Bunhill  Fields)  they,  like  so  many 
bedlams,  cast  the  corpse  in,  and  with  their 
feet,  instead  of  spades,  cast  and  turned  in  the 
mold  till  the  grave  was  almost  full.  Then 
they  paid  the  grave-maker  for  his  pains,  who 
told  them  that  he  must  fetch  a  minister,  but 
they  said  that  he  might  spare  his  labour." 
This  single  instance  is,  therefore,  absolutely 
fatal  to  the  whole  1641  theory. 

In  Article  VIII.  the  ground  is  taken  that 
the  Presbyterians  were  the  first  to  introduce 
sprinkling  in  England  to  the  exclusion  of  im- 
mersion. Wall  declared  that  sprinkling  began 
in  England   "in  the   disorderly  times  of  1641," 


156 

and  that  in  ''1645  it  was  used  by  very  few." 
Sprinkling  came  in  "with  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly, which  excluded  dipping-  by  a  major- 
ity of  one.  This  was  in  1643  and  in  1644  that 
the  Presbyterians  passed  acts  in  the  Parlia- 
ment excluding  dipping  and  substituting  pour- 
ing in  its  place.  At  the  time  that  Article  was 
written,  only  extracts  of  these  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment were  before  me,  now  I  have  these  acts 
in  full.  They  are  even  stronger  than  I  sup- 
posed, and  carry  out  fully  my  contention  that 
sprinkling  was  introduced  as  the  ordinary  act 
of  baptism  in  1644.  Scobell's  CoUec :  of  Acts 
of  Parlmt,  Anno  1644,  it  is  decreed  that  "The 
book  of  Common-Prayer  shall  not  be  hence- 
forth used,  but  the  Directory  for  Publiq  Wor- 
ship." The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  pre- 
scribed immersion,  and  the  Directory  pre- 
scribed affusion.  It  was  ordered  that  the 
Directory  should  under  penalty  be  used 
throughout  the  United  Kingdom.  In  order 
that  none  might  escape,  it  was  decreed  that  "a 
fair  Register  book  of  Velim,  to  be  kept  by  the 
Minister  and  other  Officers  of  tlie  Church  ;  and 
that  the  Names  of  all  Children  Baptized,  and 
of  their  Parents,  and  of  the  time  of  their  Birth 
and  Baptizing,  shall  bo  written  and  set  down 
by  the  minister ;"  &c.  This  infamous  law  was 
meant  as  a  check  on  every  Baptist  in  the 
land,  and  all  that  was  needed  to  convict  such 
a  one  was  to  refer  to  this  book  of  "Velim."  In 
order  that  there  might  be  no  mistake  on  the 
meaning  of  baptism,  it  was  decreed:  "Then 
the  Minister  is  to  demand  the  Name  of  the 
Childe,  which  being  told  him,  he  is  to  say 
(calling  the  Childe  by  his  Name) 

"I  baptize  thee  in  the  Name  of  the  Father, 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"As  he  pronounceth  the  words,  he  is  to  Bap- 
tize the  Childe  with  water:  which  for  the 
manner  of  doing  it  is  not  onely  lawfuUbut  suf- 
ficient and  most  expedient  to  be,  by  powring 


156 

or  sprinkling  of  the  water  on  the  Face  of  the 
childe,  without  adding  any  other  ceremony." 
Here,  then,  is  the  law  which  directly  replaces 
immersion  by  sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  this 
was  passed  in  January  3, 1644-5. 

It  was  not,  however,  till  1648  that  the  Pres- 
byterians were  enabled  to  enact  the  "gag  law." 
They  had  already  substituted  sprinkling  for 
dipping,  but  they  now  go  further  and  punish 
the  Bai^tists  as  "blasphemers  and  heretics." 
It  was  declared  that  any  person  who  said 
"that  the  baptizing  of  Infants  is  unlawfull,  or 
such  Baptism  is  void,  or  that  such  persons 
ought  to  be  baptized  again,  or  in  pursuance 
thereof  shall  baptize  any  person  formerly  bap- 
tized," shall  be  placed  in  prison  and  remain 
there  until  they  "shall  flnde  two  suflBicient  sur- 
ities"  that  "they  shall  not  publish  the  same 
error  any  more."  Under  this  infamous  law  400 
Baptists  were  thrown  into  prison.  This  was 
the  triumph  of  sprinkling  in  England,  and 
reached  its  culmination  in  1648.  Sprinkling 
began  in  1641,  became  the  ecclesiastical  law  in 
1643,  the  civil  law  in  1644-6,  and  was  vigorous- 
ly pushed  in  1648,  and  those  who  held  dipping 
were  punished  as  blasphemers  and  heretics. 
Thus  did  sprinkling  prevail  in  England.  Those 
who  declare  that  Baptists  sprinkled  till  the 
Presbyterians  came  into  power,  and  when 
sprinkling  became  the  law  of  the  land  they  be- 
came dippers,  only  make  the  Baptists  absurd 
in  the  eyes  of  the  world. 

It  may  have  been  observed  by  some  that  up 
to  this  point  I  have  engaged  in  no  discussion 
upon  one  John  Batte,  who,  it  is  declared,  bap- 
tized Blunt  in  Holland.  The  reason  for  this 
delay  was  to  give  time  to  examine  a  certain 
book  which  Dr.  Rauschenbusch,  of  Hamburg, 
Germany,  found  which  was  declared  to 
settle  the  baptism  of  Blunt  by  Batte.  If 
such  evidence  had  been  found,  I  was  anxious 
to  see  it  and  to  accept  it,  if  it  were  valid.    The- 


157 


Jmirnal  and  Messenger  published  an  article 
which  professed  to  be  a  translation  of  the  ad- 
vanced sheets  of  a  chapter  from  a  work  which 
was  to  appear  from  Dr.  Rauschenbusch.  It 
was  claimed  that  Dr.  Rauschenbusch  had 
found  a  "rare  book"  which  settled  the  entire 
question.  The  book  in  question  wa8  called: 
'^Geschiedenis  der  Rhynsburger  Vergadenng. 
Since  the  appearance  of  this  article  I  have  se- 
cured Dr.  Rauschenbusch 's  book,  and  have 
also  read  the  "old"  Dutch  book  mentioned 
above,  so  I  can  speak  in  the  light  of  the  facts. 
The  quotation  from  a  translation  of  a  chap- 
ter from  Dr.  Rauschenbusch 's  book  in  the 
Journal  and  Messenger,  in  which  I  was  interest- 
ed, is  as  follows:  r^^  .  ^■ 

"The  Rhynsburgers  were  a  Christian  party 
which  began  in  HoUand    in    1620.    Like  the 
Puritans  in  England  they  permitted  not  only 
their  pastors,  but  also  lay  members  to  speak 
in  their  meetings.    Baptism  was  practiced  by 
them  only  by  immersion,  therefore  they  were 
called  in  Dutch  'Dompelsers,'  that  is,  immer- 
sionists.     (To  this  day  one  can  see  at  Rhyns- 
burg    the     large     basin     where     they     bap- 
tized).   Blount  was  most  cordial^  welcomed 
at   Rhynsburg  and  received  baptism  of  Jan 
Batte ,  their  pastor.    He  returned  immediately 
to  the  church  at  London  and  immersed  the 
pastor,  Samuel  Blacklock,  and  the  latter  53 
others.    Most  probably  they  belonged  to  sev- 
eral Independent  churches,  but  principally  to 
the  church,  which  had  separated  in  1633  from 
the  Independent   church  founded  by  Henry 
Jacob.    Their   pastor  was  at  that  time  John 
Spilsbury,  a  godly  and  most  intelligent  man, 
who  also  received  baptism.    It  was  only  con- 
iectured  in  former  years,  but  not  known  for  a 
certainty  that  it  was  the  Rhynsburgers,  from 
whom  Richard  Blount  received  baptism.    But 
in  the  year  1880  the  writer  had  the  privilege  by 
special  providence  of  God  to  meet  at  the  wat- 


153 

ering  place  Godesberg  near  Bonn  on  the  Rhine 
a  Dutch  book-seller  who  showed  me  great 
kindness  and  sent  me  a  copy  of  the  very  rare 
book,  'Geschiedenis  der  Rhynsburgische 
Vergadering,'  that  is,  History  of  the  Rhyns- 
burger  Congregation.  This  copy  I  presented 
later  to  the  library  of  the  German  Baptist 
Theological  Seminary  at  Hamburg-Horn, 
where  all  who  wish  can  read  it  for  themselves. 
In  this  book  right  at  the  beginning  Jan  Batte 
is  named  as  a  very  prominent  teacher  of  the 
Rhynsburgers.  Undoubtedly  he  is  the  same 
of  whom  Thomas  Crosby  (who  calls  him  John 
Batte)  tells,  affirming  that  Richard  Blount 
was  baptized  by  him." 

After  reading  the  above  extract  rather  care- 
fully, it  was  easy  to  see  that  the  "rare  book" 
which  "the  special  providence  of  God"  had 
thrown  in  the  way  of  Dr.  Rauschenbusch  after 
all  was  not  thoroughly  convincing  to  Dr. 
Rauschenbusch  himself.  It  was  far  from  be- 
ing convincing  to  others. 

1.  Dr.  Rauschenbusch  distinctly  tells  us 
above  that  he  relies  upon  the  testimony  of 
Thomas  Crosby  for  the  connecting  link  be- 
tween John  Batte  and  Richard  Blunt;  and 
Crosby  distinctly  declares  that  all  the 
testimony  he  has  on  that  subject  is 
a  manuscript  said  to  have  been  written  by 
William  Kiffin.  Prof.  Newman  says  of  Dr. 
Rauschenbusch 's  book:  "He  seems  not  to  be 
familiar  with  the  later  discussions  on  this 
question,  and  to  possess  only  the  information 
supplied  by  Crosby."  In  truth,  no  one  has 
presented  any  testimony  in  regard  to  John 
Batte  that  has  not  had  its  origin  in  Crosby. 
Dr.  L.  Cramer,  Professor  of  History  in  the 
Mennonite  Preachers'  Seminary,  Amsterdam, 
Holland,  after  an  investigation  of  the  subject, 
wrote  under  date  of  March  23,1899:  "About 
John  Batten  we  here  in  Holland  know  nothing 
more  than  you  can  find  in  Crosby."    We  have 


169 

already  seen  that  the  "Kiflan"  Manuscript  is 
of  no  authority  whatever,  and  is  absolutely 
contrary  to  well  known  and  well  established 
facts. 

2.  Dr.  Rauschenbusch  directly  contradicts 
the  Gould  ''Kiffin"  Manuscript  when  he  says: 
''Blount  was  most  cordially  welcomed  at 
Bhynsbnrg,  and  received  baptism  of  John 
Batte,  their  pastor."  The  Gould  "Kiffln" 
Manuscript  does  not  declare  that  Batte  baptized 
Blunt,  but  only  that  he  "was  kindly  accepted 
there,  and  returned  with  letters  from  them." 
The  Gould  "KiflBn"  does  not  assert  that  Blunt 
was  ever  dipped  by  anybody. 

3.  Dr.  Rauschenbusch  makes  a  statement 
of  which  there  is  not  one  line  of  proof  in  the 
"Kiffln"  Manuscript  or  anywhere  else.  He 
says:  "Their  pastor  was  at  that  time  John 
Spilsbury,  a  godly  and  most  intelligent  man, 
who  also  received  baptism."  There  is  no 
proof  that  Spilsbury  was  re-immersed  or  bap- 
tized in  any  way  in  1641.  He  is  not  in  the  list 
of  those  baptized  by  the  "Kiflan"  Manuscript, 
nor  is  there  any  other  proof  that  he  was  bap- 
tized in  1641. 

4.  There  was  a  sense  of  uncertainty  that  ran 
all  through  Prof.  Rauschenbusch's  statements 
that  would  not  make  his  words  very  authori- 
tative where  facts  and  not  suppositions  are 
needed.  "Most  probably"  does  not  just  now 
answer  where  facts  are  needed.  The  1641 
vagarists  are  already  well-supplied  with  opin- 
ions, but  just  now  they  are  dreadfully  in  need 
of  some  facts. 

But  let  us  look  after  the  book,  "the  rare 
book,"  which  Dr.  Rauschenbusch  found.  "The 
brilliant  professor' '  who  furnished  this  trans- 
lation of  Prof.  R.'s  book  to  the  Journal  and 
Messenger  makes  Prof.  Rauschenbusch  declare 
of  "The  History  of  the  Rhynsburger  Congre- 
gation," "this  copy  I  presented  later  to  the 
library  of   the    German  Baptist   Theological 


160 

Seminary  at  Hamburg-Horn,  where  all  who 
wish  can  read  it  for  themselves."  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  book  is  not  in  Hamburg-Horn,  but 
in  Philadelphia;  not  in  the  library  in  Ger- 
many, but  in  the  American  Baptist 
Historical  Society  Library,  and  was  not 
presented  to  the  German  library,  but 
was  sold,  as  the  owner  had  a  perfect 
right  to  do,  to  the  Society  in  Phila- 
delphia. How  is  this  known?  Through  a  per- 
sonal letter  from  Prof.  Rauschenbusch,  and 
also  through  the  very  book  which  the  "bril- 
liant professor"  was  trying  to  translate,  name- 
ly: Die  Entstehung  der  Kindertaufe,  by  A. 
Rauschenbusch,  Hamburg,  1898,  p.  124.  And 
I  was  permitted  to  examine  this  very  copy 
through  the  courtesy  of  the  officers  of  the 
Historical  Society. 

Of  course,  I  was  expecting  something  very 
ancient  and  very  authoritative.  I  was  sur- 
prised to  find  an  anonymous  book  of  recent  or- 
igin. The  following  is  the  title-page:  "His- 
torie  Der  Rijnsburgsche  Vergadering.  Te 
Rotterdam,  Bij  Jacob  Burgvliet  en  Zoon. 
MDCCLXXV."  In  other  words,  a  nameless 
author  had  printed  a  book  134  years  after  1641, 
and  I  am  asked  to  accept  that  book  as  conclu- 
sive. The  book  does  not  even  possess  the 
merit  of  telling  us  where  it  got  its 
information  in  regard  to  Batten.  A  distance 
of  134  years  does  not  seem  to  trouble  the  1641 
theorists 

The  book  does  not  contain  one  solitary  word 
about  Richard  Blunt.  There  is  not  a  line  in 
the  book  from  beginning  to  end  in  regard  to 
the  English  Baptists.  It  is  not  declared  that 
Batten  was  a  teacher.  There  is  not  a  word  to 
prove  that  Batten  was  ever  immersed,  or  that 
he  believed  in  immersion.  Besides,  the  name 
of  the  man  mentioned  in  the  Crosby  "Kiffin" 
and  the  Gould  "Kiffin"  Manuscripts  is  not 
Jan  Batten,  but  John  Batte.    I  would  have  no 


161 

reason  to  believe  that  these  -were  the  same 
persons,  although  the  author  of  A  Question  in 
Baptist  History  has  changed  the  name  from 
Batte  in  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript  to  Batten,  p. 
82,  to  make  it  appear  that  these  names  were 
the  same,  and  in  so  doing  he  changed  the  very- 
text  he  was  professing  to  quote.  (See  Gould's 
Open  Communion  and  the  Baptists  of  Nor- 
wich, pp.  exxiii.,  cxxiv.) 

This  Dutch  book  does  not  contain  a  state- 
ment about  John  Batte  and  only  one  in  refer- 
ence to  Jan  Batten.  I  present  a  literal  trans- 
lation of  the  Dutch : 

''Then  some  one  rose  up  and  read  a  text  or 
Scripture  passage  which  he  treated  (or  ex- 
pounded) in  the  manner  of  a  harangue  or  ser- 
mon. This  speech  having  been  ended  was  left 
to  the  criticism  of  the  hearers,  so  that  every 
one  who  had  any  remarks  to  make  or  addi- 
tions, to  the  end  (or  purpose)  that  any  one 
might  make  use  of  the  liberty  of  the  place. 
Then  another  one  arose  who  read  and  spoke  in 
the  manner  already  mentioned. 

"It  has  even  happened  in  the  beginning  of 
the  movement  that  this  was  repeated  by  four 
speakers  successively,  so  that  these  meetings 
prolonged  themselves  into  the  (or  toward)  the 
morning  and  several  in  the  audience  had  fal- 
len into  a  deep  sleep. 

"Notwithstanding  the  freedom  extended  to 
all,  the  usual  speakers  were  ordinarily  Gysbert 
Jacobszoon  (son  of  Jacob)  Van  der  Kodde,  Jan 
and  Adriaen  Van  der  Kodde,  Tonis  Komelis- 
zoon  (son  of  Cornelius)  from  the  Kaeg  and  a 
certain  Jan  Batten  from  Leiden.  Although 
occasionally  some  one  else  brought  forward 
something,  the  former  nevertheless  were  also 
heard  on  one  or  the  other  subject. 

"This  new  persuasion,  also  known  by  the 
name  of  the  'Sect  of  the  Prophets,'  did  not  re- 
main hidden  very  long.    Many  preachers  got 
wind  of  it,  and  among  others  the  Eev.  Jakobus 
11 


162 

Batelier,  who  was  formerly  settled  at  Kralin- 
geu,  but  on  account  oi  his  Remonstrant  views 
was  deposed  and  was  now  living  at  Leiden,  ap- 
peared in  their  meeting-"'  (pp.  21,  22). 

The  date  in  wliich  Jan  Batten's  name  was 
mentioned  was  before  1618,  for  the  Rhyns- 
burgers  were  not  yet  organized,  and  were  hav- 
ing some  meetings  which  afterwards  resulted 
in  the  organization  of  that  people.  At  this 
time  ''the  sect  of  the  prophets"  was  hidden, 
and  the  new  persuasion  was  not  known  to  the 
people.  It  was  not  until  quite  a  time  after 
this,  "when  the  meetings  increased  in  size," 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  instituted,  and 
still  later  they  baptized  by  immersion  (pp.  38, 
39).  This  is  the  only  mention  of  Batten ;  he  is 
not  represented  as  having  accepted  immersion; 
he  is  not  represented  as  a  teacher;  he  is  not 
represented  as  ever  having  become  a  member 
of  the  Rhynsburg  Congregation.  He  was  sim- 
ply affiliated  some  time  before  with  the  per- 
sons who  afterwards  formed  an  organization. 
He  was  a  citizen  of  Leyden,  and  appears  to 
have  been  only  a  transient  visitor  in  or  near 
Rhynsburg.  In  this  liistory  detailed  accounts 
are  given  of  this  Congregation  throughout 
Holland,  and  the  performances  of  many  teach- 
ers in  Leyden,  and  elsewhere,  but  not  one  word 
is  ever  said  in  regard  to  Jan  Batten.  This  is 
more  than  23  years  before  1641,  and  there  is  not 
the  slightest  reason  to  believe  that  Jan  Batten 
was  a  teacher  in  a  Society  that  was  never  large 
for  23  years  and  more,  where  there  are  detailed 
accounts  of  doings  of  this  Society  and  not  a 
mention  made  of  this  man.  It  is  amazing  how 
a  little  light  and  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  in 
the  case  dissipates  all  this  1641  business.  There 
is  not  a  court  on  earth  that  would  receive  such 
stuff  as  testimony. 

Here  is  an  anonymous  book,  written  123 
years  after  1641,  telling  of  a  man  who  lived  146 
years  before,  whose  name    was    Jan  Batten. 


168 

This  book  knows  not  one  word  of  Riehard 
Blunt,  never  heard  of  the  English  Baptists, 
and  does  not  mention  John  Batte.  In  order  to 
make  this  book  serve  the  1641  theory,  we  must 
imagine  that  John  Batte  and  Jan  Batten  were 
the  same,  that  Jan  Batten  was  still  alive  in 
1641,  that  he  joined  the  Congregation,  that  he 
became  a  preacher,  that  he  moved  from  Ley- 
den  to  Rhynsburg,  that  he  was  immersed,  and 
that  finally  he  immersed  Richard  Blunt,  and 
finally  we  must  imagine  that  there  was  a  Rich- 
ard Blunt  who  lived  in  England,  that  he  was 
a  Baptist,  that  he  changed  his  mind  on  the 
subject  of  immersion  in  1640,  that  he  made  his 
trip  to  Holland, met  Batten,  that  he  convinced 
Batten  that  he  was  the  proper  man  to  be  bap- 
tized, that  he  was  baptized,  that  he  came  back 
to  England,  that  he  convinced  all  the  Baptists 
that  they  ought  to  be  immersed,  that  he  im- 
mersed them  all  and  introduced  immersion  in 
England ;  we  must  further  imagine  that  he  so 
effectually  hid  himself  that  nobody  ever  heard 
of  him,  and  that  he  remained  absolutely  un- 
known to  any  man  of  his  generation.  We 
must  further  imagine  that  somebody  some- 
time wrote  an  anonymous  manuscript  which 
was  called  the  "Kiffin"  Manuscript,  and  that 
this  must  be  hid  away  for  an  hundred  years 
before  anybody  ever  heard  of  it,  and  when  it 
is  needed  this  "Kiffln"  Manuscript  can  appear 
in  a  new  edition  to  suit  local  conditions, 
and  that  no  man  knows  whence  it  came  or 
whither  it  went.  And  when  all  of  these  imag- 
inings have  taken  place,  we  must  still  further 
stretch  our  imagination  and  explain  that  the 
"Kiffin"  Manuscript  is  infallibly  correct,  al- 
though it  contradicts  court  records  and  all 
contemporaneous  documents,  &c.,  &c.,  &c., 
&c.,&c.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 

In  this  series  of  papers  there  has  been  no 
discussion  of  the  act  of  baptism  among  the 
Dutch    and  German  Anabaptists.      That  has 


164 

not  been  done  because  the  point  of  contact 
between  these  and  the  English  Baptists  was 
not  of  such  a  character  as  to  demand  it  at  this 
time.  Fortunately  I  have  a  very  large  num- 
ber of  Dutch  and  German  works  on  the  sub- 
ject, but  shall  content  myself  with  giving  the 
opinion  of  a  few  scholars  who  can  express  an 
mtelligent  opinion.  The  first  is  Rev.  W.  W. 
Evarts,  D.D.,  who  has  given  a  good  deal  of 
study  to  German  and  Dutch  Baptists.  He  says : 

"What  is  needed  in  discussing  a  point  in 
history  is  data.  Here  are  a  few  facts  that  bear 
on  the  question  of  the  practice  of  immersion 
before  the  year  1641 :  In  1624,  at  Zurich,  Leo's 
ritual  says:  'Dip  it  into  the  water.'  In  1530, 
at  Gotha,  Myconius  suggests  the  substitution 
of  pouring  for  immersion  in  cold  weather.  In 
1632,  in  Holland,  Slachtcalf  dips  a  child  in  a 
pail  of  water.  In  1533,  at  Munster,  Rothmann 
says :  'Baptism  is  a  dipping  into  water,  a  true 
sign  that  the  candidate  is  dead  to  sins,  buried 
with  Christ,  and  arises  to  newness  of  life.' 
Dr.  Leopold  Dick  described,  in  1530,  the  mode 
of  German  Anabaptists  as  follows:  'Only  those 
who  are  old  enough  to  believe  and  repent  are 
permitted  to  be  baptized  in  water,  which  cus- 
tom is  both  indecorous  and  new,  though  they 
call  it  the  rite  of  purification.  It  is  increas- 
ing from  day  to  d  y,  so  tliat  many  cities  are 
disturbed,  where  the  Anabaptists  scarcely 
cease  baptizing,  using  domestic  baptisteries.' 

"Gastius  in  1530,  tells  of  the  Anabaptists  of 
Basel,  who  'are  wont  to  meet  in  the  flowery 
field  by  a  flowing  stream,  most  handy  for  bap- 
tism." Urbanus  Rhegius  says  of  the  Anabap- 
tists at  Augsburg  at  the  same  time:  'They 
think  if  they  are  only  baptized  as  Christ  was 
in  the  Jordan,  then  it  is  all  done.'  As  early  as 
1523  'The  Sum  of  Holy  Scripture'  was  pub- 
lished in  Holland.  It  says:  'So  we  are  dipped 
under  as  a  sign  that  we  are  arf  it  were  dead 
and  buried.    The  life  of  man  is  a  battle  upon 


earth*     In  baptism  when  we   are   plunged  un- 
der the  water,  we  promise  that  we  will  fight.' 

"Passing  over  into  England  we  find  that  no 
mention  of  pouring  occurs  in  any  ritual  before 
1550.  In  1603  the  eighty-first  canon  revives 
one  of  1670  that  ordered  in  every  church  a  font 
of  stone  for  dipping  and  forbade  the  use  of  a 
basin.  In  1635  Daniel  Rogers  writes  a  treatise 
in  favor  of  restoring  the  practice  of  dipping, 
which  was  then  becoming  obsolete.  When 
Edward  Barber  published  in  1641  his  argument 
for  the  immersion  of  believers,  it  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  practice  preceded  the  defense 
of  the  practice. 

"Ricraff,in  his  'Looking  Glass  for  Anabap- 
tists,' published  in  1645,  quotes  Kiffin,  the 
Baptist,  as  saying:  'What  can  you  find  for 
your  practice  more  than  the  dirty  puddle  of 
men's  inventions.  Our  congregations  were 
erected  and  framed  as  now  they  are,  according 
to  the  rule  of  Christ,  before  we  heard  of  any 
Reformation,  even  at  that  time  when  Episco- 
pacy was  in  t  e  height  of  its  vanishing  glory, 
even  when  they  were  plotting  and  threatening 
the  ruin  of  all  those  who  opposed  it.'  These 
words  seem  to  throw  the  practice  of  immersion 
back  of  1641  to  the  day  when  Archbishop  Laud 
was  holding  a  high  hand.  To  this  conclusion 
we  are  led  by  the  remark  of  Richard  Baxter, 
who  spoke  in  1665  of  Anabaptists,  who  'within 
twenty  years'  had  given  trouble  in  a  corner  of 
the  world.  To  the  same  conclusion  we  are  led 
by  the  words  of  Dr.  Featley."— The  Chicago 
Standard,  Nov.  14, 1896. 

I  have  at  hand  the  testimony  of  a  celebrated 
English  scholar.  Prof.  T.  \Vitton  Davies.  He 
has  given  this  subject  much  attention.  He  is 
a  Professor  of  History  in  the  Midland  Baptist 
College ,  Nottingham .    He  says : 

"The  real  explanation  is  simple  enough. 
'Dopper'  in  Dutch  is  the  English  word  'Dip- 


166 

per,'  and  the  German  word  'Taufer.'  The  'Dip- 
pers,' as  they  are  called  in  Holland,  are  a  very- 
powerful  body  in  that  country,  almost  as  nu- 
merous and  as  wealthy  as  the  Reformed  com- 
munity, which  is  the  established  church  of  the 
land ;  they  are  really  Baptists,  and  trace  their 
origin  to  Simon  Menno,  who  died  A.  D.  1661. 
At  first  they  dipped  as  Baptists  do  in  this 
country  now ;  they  still  hold  that  no  one  has  a 
right  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  but  those 
who  have  reached  years  of  discretion,  and, 
first  of  all,  make  a  public  profession  of  Chris- 
tianity. They  do  not  now  dip  nor  do  they 
sprinkle;  they  pour,  or  rather  they  dip  their 
hand  in  a  basin  of  water,  and  convey  such  as 
can  be  carried  to  the  head  of  the  candidate.  I 
have  attended  their  services  and  witnessed 
the  observance  of  the  rite  of  baptism  among 
them.  There  can  be  no  doubt  on  historical, 
as  well  as  on  etymological,  grounds  that  orig- 
inally they  immersed;  they  have  abandoned 
the  mode  on  account  of  its  inconvenience,  but 
they  adhere  to  what  the  Baptists  the  whole 
world  over  regard  as  immeasurably  more  im- 
portant than  the  mode,  the  practice,  namely, 
of  baptizing  those  only  who  know  what  they 
are  about,  and  who  of  their  own  free  will  and 
choice,  wish  to  submit  to  the  ordinance." 

The  great  German  historian,  Karl  Budolf 
Hagenbach,  D.D.,  wrote  the  article  on  the 
Collegian ts,  or  Rhynsburgers,  for  the  Schafl- 
Herzog  Encyclopaedia,  vol.  1,  p.  512.  His  tes- 
timony is  simple  and  direct.  He  says:  "Like 
the  Anabaptists,  they  used  immersion  at  bap- 
tism." No  one  will  assert  that  he  is  not  a  com- 
petent historian. 

Dr.  Ludwig  Keller,  the  great  German  Ana- 
baptist historian  declares :  "That  a  portion  of 
Taeufer  (those  who  baptized)  practiced  im- 
mersion is  certain." 

Along  by  the  side  of  such  historians  I  am 
willing  to  stand. 


APPENDIX. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  LIVING  SCHOLARS 

OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

TO  IMMERSION. 


"While  I  was  in  England,  I  had  occasion  to 
speak  to  a  number  of  clergymen  and  other 
Church  of  England  scholars  on  the  subject  of 
baptism.  Their  answers  were  given  in  such 
direct  and  usually  in  such  unbiassed  terms 
that  I  at  once  felt  that  I  was  in  an  entirely 
different  atmosphere  from  that  which  I  found 
in  the  Pedobaptist  communions  of  America. 
My  curiosity  was  excited  and  I  determined  to 
investigate.  The  result  was  as  surprising  to 
me  as  it  was  gratifying.  It  will  be  seen  from 
this  paper  that  I  present  the  testimony  of  the 
foremost  Hebrew  and  Greek  professors  of  the 
Universities,  together  with  the  testimony  of 
bishops  and  foremost  preachers  of  the  Church 
of  England. 

I.  The  Hebrew  scholars.  I  asked  the  lead- 
ing English  University  and  College  professors 
of  Hebrew  the  following  questions: 

1.  What  is  the  literal  or  ordinary  meaning 
of  the  Hebrew  word  tabhal  which  is  translated 
in  the  Old  Testament  by  the  Greek  word 
baptizo? 


2.  Does  any  authorative  Hebrew-English 
lexicon  define  the  word  by  the  words  "to 
sprinkle"  or  "to  pour?" 

The  answers  were  clear  and  explicit.    Prof. 

5.  R.  Driver,  D.D., Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
in  Oxford  University,  and  perhaps  the  fore- 
most Hebrew  scholar  in  England,  says : 

Christ  Church,  Oxford,  Aug.  31. 
J.  T.  Christian,  Esq.,  LL.D. 

Dear  Sir:  The  word  tabhal  which  is  rep- 
resented in  the  Septuagint  by  baptizo  in  2.  Ki. 
V.  14 — it  is  more  usually  represented  by  bapto — 
means  to  immerse  or  dip ;  it  is  regularly  ren- 
dered dip  in  the  Auth.  Version,  Gen.  xxxvii. 
31,  Lev.  ix.  9,  Ex.  xii.  22,  Ruth  ii.  14,  Rev.  xiv. 

6,  Josh.  iii.  15, 1  S.  xiv.  27, except  once,  Job  ix. 
31,  where  it  is  rendered  plunge,  and  the  same 
rendering  is  adopted  by  Gesenius,  and  is  in 
fact  the  meaning  recognized  by  all  authorities. 
The  word  does  not  mean  to  pour  or  sprinkle. 

Believe  me  yours  very  truly, 

S.  R.  Driver. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Dr.  Driver  is  the 
author  of  a  great  Hebrew  lexicon  which  is  now 
appearing  from  the  Clarendon  Press,  Oxford. 
Prof.  John  F.  Steabing,  of  the  University  of 
London,  says,  in  a  letter  to  me,  of  this  work : 
"The  best  Hebrew-English  Lexicon  is  one  by 
Brown,  Briggs  and  Driver  of  which  the  first 
six  parts  have  now  been  published."  This 
work  is  also  highly  commended  by  Prof.  W. 
H.  Bennett,  of  New  College,  London.  It  will 
be  seen  t  erefore  that  this  definition  is  in  ac- 
cord with  the  latest  and  most  critical  scholar- 
ship. The  definition  given  in  Brown,  Driver 
andBriggs  is:  "Dip — (NH  id;  Aramtebhal  dip, 
bathe,)  1.  trans,  dip  athing  in.  2.  Intrans.  dip 
(oneself),  sq.  be,  2  K.  14  in  Jordan." 

The  Rev. Charles  H.  H.  Wright  is  one  of 
the  Examiners  in  Hebrew  of  the  University  of 
London.  He  is  a  DD.  of  Trinity  College, 
Dublin;  an   M.A.    of   Exeter    College  and    a 


Ph.D.  of  the  University  of  Leipzig;  Bampton 
Lecturer  1878  in  the  University  of  Oxford, 
Donnellan  Lecturer  in  the  University  of  Dub- 
lin 1880-81,  etc.    He  says  in  his  letter  to  me : 

"(1).  The  Hebrew  word  for  baptize  (tabkal) 
unquestionably  meant  originally  to  dip,  to 
bathe  ;  and  Jewish  baptism  was  unquestion- 
ably by  immersion. 

'■(2).  No  Hebrew  lexicon  would  render  tdb- 
hal  by  pour  or  sprinkle." 

Prof .  John  F.  Steabing,  Washburn  College, 
Oxford,  and  Examiner  to  the  University  of 
London, says: 

"(1)  The  Hebrew  word  tabhal  denotes  'to 
dip,'  being  usually  followed  by  the  prep,  be 
(=in).  Examples  of  this  occur  at  Gen,  37.  31. 
Lev.  4.9.  14.  51  (in  blood).  Num.  19.18  (in 
water),  IS.  14.27. 

"The  verb  also  occurs  as  an  intransitive 
='to  dip  oneself  at  2  Kings  6. 14.  The  parallel 
phrase  is  vs.  10 and  12  being  rahatz  'to  wash  in.' 

"(2)  As  far  as  I  know  (though  I  have  not 
any  of  my  books  with  me)  it  is  not  translated 
'to  sprinkle'  or  'to  pour'  in  any  authoritative 
Hebrew-English  Dictionary." 

Prof.  William  H.  Bennett,  M.  A.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  New  College,  London,  says:  "It 
is  usually  bapto^  rarely  baptizo,  to  which  tabhal 
is  rendered  in  the  new  Standard  lexicon, 
Brown-Driver-Briggs,  by  dip,  moisten,  dip 
oneself;  similarly  in  Seigfreid  and  Stade's  lex- 
icon. The  root  has  the  meaning  'dip'  in 
Aramaic  and  in  post-biblical  Hebrew.  In  the 
latter  it  also  means  to  take  luncheon. 

"No  authoritative  lexicon  would  give 
'sprinkle'  or  'pour'  as  equivalents  to  tabhal. 

"Feurst  indeed  gives  in  his  concordance 
'rigere,  tingere^perf under e.,''  but  I  imagine  these 
are  to  lead  up  to,  and  be  interpreted  by  'immer- 
gere,'  which  he  gives  last  in  italics. 

"I  see  that  Young's  Analytical  Concordance 
gives   'moisten,  besprinkle,'  but  the   Concor- 


dance  is  scarcely  an  authority  on  points  of 
Hebrew. 

"I  think  Feurst  means  tha,ttabhal  by  etymol- 
ogy and  perhaps  by  original  use  meant  pour  or 
sprinkle ;  but  in  O.  T.  means  to  dip." 

Rev.  Laurence  M.  Simmons,  B.A.,  LL.B., 
professor  of  Hebrew  and  Arabic  in  Owens  Col- 
lege, Manchester,  says:  "The  Hebrew  verb 
tabhal  (T.  B.  L.)  has  the  meaning  of  dip  In, 
either  active  or  reflective.  I  do  not  know  any 
where  it  is  defined  'to  sprinkle'  or  'to  pour.' 

The  Rev.  S.  Leathes,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew  and  Rabbinical  Literature  in  Kings 
College,  London,  writes:  "I  am  without 
books  of  reference  here,  but  as  far  as  I  remem- 
ber there  is  no  word  in  the  Old  Testament 
exactly  answering  to  the  New  Testament  bnp- 
tizo  because  the  act  implied  is  peculiar  to  the 
N.  and  no  certain  Hebrew  word  is  used  to 
translate  the  Greek.  The  point  must  then  be 
referred  to  the  original  about  which  I  appre- 
hend there  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  the  mean- 
ing and  I  don't  think  any  Hebrp w  word  mean- 
ing to  sprinkle  or  pour  would  be  used  to  trans- 
late the  Greek."  The  Rev.  D.  W.  Marks,  the 
Goldsmed  professor  of  Hebrew  in  University 
College,  London,  says  that  an  entirely  differ- 
ent Hebrew  word  means  to  sprinkle  and  refers 
to  M.  Josephs'  English-Hebrew  lexicon  which 
defined  tabhal  simply  "to  dii)." 

Stronger  testimony  than  this  could  not  be 
presented  on  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word 
corresponding  to  the  Greek  baptizof  These  are 
all  Pedobaptist  scholars,  professors  in  the 
universities  and  colleges  of  England, and  yet 
their  definition  of  tabJi'd  is  quite  as  definite  and 
unmistakable  as  any  Bajjtist  could  desire. 

II.  The  Greek  scholars  on  baptizo.  I  asked 
eminent  English  professors  of  Greek  the  fol- 
lowing questions: 

1.     What  is  the  literal    or  ordinary  meaning 


of  the  Greek  word  baptizo  in  classical  Greek 
literature? 

2.  Is  there  an  authoritative  Greek-English 
lexicon  which  defines  the  word  "to  sprinkle" 
or  "to  pour?" 

I  received  answers  as  follows: 

The  Rev.  H.  Kynaston,  D.D,,  Professor  of 
Greek  and  Classical  Literature,  University  of 
Durham,  says:  "The  word  baptizo  means 'to 
dip,  or  sink'  into  water — not  sprinkle,  which  is 
raino.  I  know  of  no  lexicon  which  gives 
'sprinkle'  for  bavtizo.'''' 

Prof.  G.C.  Warr,M.A.,  Professor  of  Greek 
in  Kings  College,  says:  "Certainly  the  classi- 
cal meaning  of  baptizo  is  to  dip,  not  to  sprinkle 
or  to  pour!" 

Prof.  John  Stracham,  M.A.,  Owens  College, 
says:  "You  will  find  illustrations  of  the  use 
of  baptizo  in  Liddell  &  Scott's  Greek  Lexicon 
or  in  Stephanus'  Thesaurus.  It  is  not  much 
used  in  Classical  Greek.  The  Primary  mean- 
ing is  'to  dip'  (under  water)  and  its  metaphor- 
ical was  clearly  come  from  that.  I  never  to 
my  knowledge  met  with  the  word  in  the 
literal  sense  of  'sprinkle,'  and  I  doubt  if  it  has 
any  such  meaning." 

Prof.  A.  S.  Wilkins,  Litt.  D.,  LL.D.,  Profes- 
sor of  Greek  New  Testament  Criticism,  Owens 
College,  says :  "I  think  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  normal  meaning  of  baptizo  denotes 
'put  in,'  'to  immerse.'  You  may  fully  trust  the 
account  of  the  use  which  you  find  in  Thayer's 
edition  of  Grimm's  Lexicon.  I  do  not  think 
that  any  lexicon  of  authority  gives  the  literal 
meaning  of  'to  pour.'  " 

Prof.  G.  E.  Marmdin,  Esq.,  M.A.,  Examiner 
of  Greek  in  the  London  University  says :  "I 
think  you  will  find  a  perfectly  correct  account 
of  the  classical  use  of  baptizo  in  Liddell  & 
Scott's  Lexicon,  The  word  in  classical  writers 
means  'to  dip,'  and  may  imply  to  dip  into 
water  (or  any  thing  else)  or  to   dip  completely 


under,  so  as  to  sink.  In  fact  it  has  the  same 
sense  as  the  commoner  word  bapto^  except  it 
does  not  like  bapto  bear  the  acquired  meaning 
'to  dye.' 

"In  regard  to  your  second  question,  I  do  not 
know  of  any  Greek-English  lexicon  which 
gives  the  meanings  'to  sprinkle'  or  'to  pour' — 
if  any  does  so,  I  should  say  it  make  a  mis- 
take." 

Prof.  R.  Y.  Tyrrell,  D.Litt.,  LL.D.,  M.A., 
Examiner  of  Greek  in  London  University, 
says:  "(1)  iJopiiso  occurs  in  classical  Greek 
only  in  the  sense  of  'drowned,'  metaphorically, 
as  'drowned  with  an  avalanche  of  questions,' 
'soaked  in  wine.'  (2)  The  word  could  not 
mean  to  'sprinkle' or  'pour,' only  to  'dip'  or 
'put  under  water.'  " 

Itwillbeseen  that  the  lexicons  quoted  by 
these  professors  are  Liddell  &  Scott  which  de- 
fines the  word  "to  dip  in,  or  under  water;" 
Stephanus,  "mergo,  immergo,"  "to  merge,  to 
immerse ;"  Thayer  who  defines  the  word :  "I. 
(1)  prop,  to  dip  repeatedly,  to  immerse,  sub- 
merge ;  (2)  to  cleanse  by  dipping  or  submerg- 
ing, to  wash,  to  make  clean  with  water;  (3) 
metaph.to  overwhelm.  II.  In  the  N.  T.  it  is 
used  particularly  of  the  rite  of  sacred  ablution, 
first  instituted  by  John  the  Baptist,  afterwards 
by  Christ's  command  received  by  Christians 
and  adjusted  to  the  contents  of  their  religion, 
viz.,  an  immersion  in  water,"  &c. 

But,  as  a  closing  testimony  on  this  point,  I 
present  a  letter  from  Prof.  R.C.  Jebb,  Litt.  D., 
Professor  of  Greek  in  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge and  Trinity  College.    Dr.  Jebb  says : 

Springfield,  Cambridge,  Sep.  23,  '98. 
Bev.  John  T.  Christian, 

31  Bernard  St.,  Russell  Square, 

London,  W.C. 

Dear  Sib: — 1.  The  ordinary  meaning  of 
haptizo  in  classical  Greek  is,  as  you  may  see  in 
Liddell  &  Scott's  Lexicon,  to  "dip,"  "to  put 


under  water."  The  root  of  the  verb  baphis 
probably  akin  to  bath,  the  root  of  batlvus, 
'•deep,"  bathos,  "depth."  The  idea  of  submer- 
sion is  thus  inherent  in  it. 

2.  I  do  not  know  whether  there  is  any  "au- 
thoritative Greek-English  lexicon"  which 
makes  the  word  mean  "sprinkle"  or  "pour." 
I  can  only  say  that  such  a  meaning  never  be- 
longs to  the  word  in  classical  Greek. 

Yours  faithfully, 

R.  C.  Jebb. 

II. 

III.  Bishops  and  other  prominent  preach- 
ers of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  meaning 
of  baptizo. 

1  asked  the  leading  bishops  and  some  other 
prominent  clergymen  the  following  questions: 

1.  What  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  Greek 
word  ba-ptizof 

2  Was  the  word  used  by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  in  this  literal  sense? 

3.  About  what  date  was  sprinkling  and 
pouring  substituted  for  dipping  in  England, 
and  the  cause  for  that  substitution? 

4.  What  is  the  present  attitude  of  the  Church 
of  England  toward  dipping?  Are  there  any 
baptisteries  in  the  churches  of  your  diocese? 

To  these  inquiries  I  received  the  following 
answers : 

The  Archbishop,  Right  Honorable  and  Most 
Reverend  Frederick  Temple,  D.D.,  Primate  of 
all  England  and  Metropolitan,  in  reference  to 
my  "first  threequestions,"referredmeto  "The 
Teachers'  Prayer  Book,"  by  Bishop  Barry, and 
to  Bishop  Harold  Brown's  article  on  "Bap- 
tism" in  Smith's  dictionary.  Bishop  Barry, 
whose  language  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury 
indorses,  gives  this  account  of  the  origin  of 
sprinkling:  "The  Rubric  still  directs  the  old 
practice  of  immersion  as  a  rule.  Affusion  being 
permitted   in  cases  of  weakness  of  the   child. 


The  ancient  form  was  undoubtedly  that  of  im- 
mersion, generally  a  three-fold  immersion  (as 
directed  in  the  old  Sarum  Manual  and  in  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1649) ,  which  had  a  far  closer 
accordance  with  the  symbolism  both  of  the 
burial  and  Resurrection,  and  of  perfect  cleans- 
ing of  the  whole  man.  This  form  accorded 
with  the  Eastern  custom :  for  it  the  ancient 
Baptisteries  were  built.  But  from  compara- 
tively early  times,  especially  in  the  West, 
from  considerations  of  climate  and  conven- 
ience, and  possibly  for  the  avoidance  of  scan- 
dal, the  Affusion  of  Water,  originally  supple- 
mentary to  the  immersion,  became  not  un- 
frequent  substitute  for  it;  and  has  gradually 
come,  in  des£)ite  of  old  custom  and  the  literal 
directions  of  the  Rubric,  to  prevail  almost  uni- 
versally."—P.  238.  B.  M.  3408.  aaa.27. 

The  above  statement  is  explicit  enough  as  to 
the  fact  that  sprinkling  was  substituted  for  im- 
mersion. The  other  author  to  whom  Dr.  Tem- 
ple refers  is  plain  on  the  Scripture  meaning  of 
the  word.  Bishop  Browne  says:  "The  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  primi- 
tive fathers  sufficiently  points  to  immersion  as 
the  common  mode  of  baptism.  John  the  Bap- 
tist baptized  in  the  river  Jordan  (Matt.  3). 
Jesus  is  represented  as  'coming  up  out  of  the 
.  water,'  anahainon  apotou  hudatos,  after  his  bap- 
tism (Mark  1.10).  Again,  John  is  said  to  have 
baptized  in  jsnon  because  there  was  much 
water  there  (John  ill.  23;  see  also  Acts  viii.36). 
The  comparison  of  baptism  to  burying  and 
rising  up  again  (Rom.  vi.;  Col.  ii.)  has  been 
already  referred  to  as  probably  derived  from 
the  custom  of  immersion." — Smith's  Bible 
Dictionary,  vol.  I.  Appendix,  p.  xeiii.  B.  M. 
3107.  df .  b. 

Archbishop  Temple  concludes  his  letter  to 
me  as  follows:  "In  answer  to  your  fourth 
question  I  may  say  that  there  is  in  Lambeth 
Parish  church  a  font  in  which  baptism  can  be 


administered  by  immersion.'' 

I  had  been  led  to  ask  in  regard  to  baptis- 
teries and  fonts  in  churches  on  account  of  some 
important  statements  I  had  met  with.  I  have 
found  that  there  are  hundreds  of  fonts  through- 
out England  sufficiently  large  for  the  immer- 
sion of  infants,  and  that  there  are  quite  a  num- 
ber sufficiently  large  for  the  immersion  of 
adults.  The  statement  is  put  forth  and  confi- 
dently stated  upon  the  highest  Episcopal  au- 
thority that  the  English  fonts  are  much  larger 
than  the  fonts  of  any  other  nation,  since  this 
nation  held  to  immersion  longer  than  any  oth- 
er. Those  who  may  desire  to  follow  this  sub- 
ject will  find  a  very  full  discussion  of  it  in  the 
various  volumes  of  the  Archseologia.  It  is, 
perhaps,  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose  to 
quote  two  short  statements  from  altogether 
competent  authorities.  The  first  is  F.  A. 
Paley.  He  says:  "Itis,  however, wellknown 
that  ancient  fonts  were  made  large  enough  for 
the  complete  immersion  of  infants.  Excep- 
tions to  this  all  but  universal  practice  are  very 
rare ;  one  or  two  instances  are  quoted  in  the 
Archaeology,  Vol.  xi.  p.  123.  .  .  .The  violation 
of  the  same  principle,  arising  from  the  unhappy 
custom  of  aspersion  now  prevalent  in  the  Eng- 
lish church,  is  one  of  the  commonest  and  worst 
faults  of  modern  usage." — Illustration  of  Bap- 
tismal Fonts,  p.  31.  B.  M.  1265.  c.  7.  And  Sam- 
uel Carte,  speaking  of  the  English  Fonts,  says: 
"Give  me  leave  to  observe,  that  antiently  at 
least  the  font  was  large  enough  to  admit  of  an 
adult  person  being  dipped  or  immersed  there- 
in." 

It  is  not  a  question  of  ancient  fonts  only,  but 
the  subject  of  immersion  is  a  very  live  one  in 
the  Church  of  England  at  this  moment.  At 
least  two  of  the  most  prominent  Episcopal 
churches  of  England  are  building  baptisteries 
sufficiently  large  to  admit  of  the  immersion  of 
adults.    I  refer  to  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and 


Lambeth  Parish  Church,  which  is  the  church 
annexed  to  Lambeth  Palace,  the  residence  of 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  to  which 
the  Archbishop  referred  in  his  letter  quoted 
above.  The  history  of  the  baptistery  in  the 
last  mentioned  church  is  a  very  interesting 
one.  It  is  known  that  the  late  Archbishoii 
Benson  died  very  suddenly.  One  of  his  last 
wishes  was  that  a  baptistery  should  be  placed 
in  Lambeth  church.  The  present  clergyman, 
the  Rev.  I.  Andrewes  Reeve,  with  the  approval 
of  his  bishop,  has  now  about  completed  the 
undertaking.  After  Archbishop  Temple  had 
called  my  attention  to  this  baptistery,  I  wrote 
Mr.  Reeve  and  received  from  him  a  printed 
statement  concerning  the  baptistery,  and  also 
a  letter  further  explaining  the  enterprise  and 
his  own  opinions  concerning  immersion.  In 
this  printed  statement  Mr.  Reeve  says:  "I 
wish  very  much  to  have  some  lasting  memor- 
ial of  our  late  Archbishop  Benson  in  Lambeth 
Parish  church,  where  he  was  wont  so  frequent- 
ly to  worship.  In  thinking  over  what  form 
the  memorial  should  take,  I  remembered  that 
on  one  occasion — I  believe  it  was  the  very  last 
when  he  had  worshiped  with  us — I  had  after 
service  asked  his  opinion  as  to  the  best  way 
of  placing  a  font  for  adult  baptisms  in  our  bap- 
tistery. He  was  very  much  interested  in  the 
idea,  and  gave  me  several  practical  sugges- 
tions. So  I  desire  now  to  choose  this  work  as 
his  memorial. 

"The  Prayer  Book  and  the  Bible  seem  defin- 
itely to  assume  that  baptism  should  in  ordi- 
nary cases  be  administered  by  immersion ;  and 
if  any  catechumen  expressed  a  desire  that  the 
service  should  be  performed,  any  clergyman, 
I  presume,  would  be  bound  to  comply  with  the 
request;  and  yet  scarcely  any  of  our  churches 
possess  a  font-grave  suitable  to  the  action. 

"Besides  this,  in  our  neighborhood  there  has 
been  much  earnest  work  in  Mr.  Spurgeon's 


'Tabernacle'  and  in  vither  Baptist  chapels,  and 
I  find  that  many  of  those  whom  I  meet  in  my 
ordinary  parish  work  have  a  conscious  convic- 
tion that  baptism  should  be  administered  by 
immersion. 

•'Our  own  Bishop,  to  whom  I  have  submitted 
my  idea,  cordially  approves  of  it,  and  suggests 
that  other  clergymen  would  perhaps  be  glad 
to  use  our  font-grave  for  any  catechumens  of 
their  own  who  desired  baptism  by  immersion. 
I  should  always  cordially  welcome  such  to  our 
church  and  baptistery." 

In  his  letter  Mr.  Reeve  says:  "I  have  al- 
ways felt  that  baptism  by  immersion,  which 
has  been  universally  used  in  the  Greek  church, 
is  the  more  correct  way  of  administering  that 
Holy  Sacrament;  and  I  felt  that  there  should 
be  somewhere  in  London  a  baptistery  where 
adults  as  well  as  infants  might  be  thus  bap- 
tized." Mr.  Reeve  is  careful  to  say  that  he 
''firmly  believes  that  baptism  by  affusion  is 
true  baptism,"  but  he  thinks  that  immersion 
is  the  "better  way."  In  conclusion  he  writes: 
'•The  font-grave  is  now  nearly  ready;  in  a 
month  or  six  weeks  I  hope  it  will  be  in  place, 
when  I  should  be  glad  to  meet  you  at  the 
church  and  show  it  to  you."  Wheal  visited 
the  church  about  the  middle  of  September  the 
iont  was  still  unfinished.  It  was  j^rotected 
so  that  the  cement  might  dry ;  but  I  could  see 
that  it  was  ample  enough  for  the  adequate  im- 
mersion of  adults.  "The  font  of  stone  in  the 
anciexit  usual  place"  was  large  enough  for  the 
immersion  of  an  infant,  provided  that  it  was 
'•discreetly  and  warily"  done.  I  take  it,  how- 
ever, that  the  bason  inside  of  the  font  was 
used  for  sprinkling. 

If  anything  further  were  needed  to  impress 
the  importance  which  is  attached  to  the  erec- 
tion of  the  baptistery  in  Lambeth  Parish 
church,  which  is  supported  by  so  many  dis- 
tinguished patrons,  is  the  furtlier  fact  that  this 

12 


enterprise  is  looked  upon,  not  as  a  matter  of 
local  interest  only,  but  in  some  way  touching 
the  whole  Church  of  England.  For  example, 
the  Bishop  of  Rochester  thought  it  of  sufficient 
importance  to  write  me:  "But  his  Lordship 
thinks  you  may  be  interested  to  know  that  the 
rector  of  Lambeth  has  recently  established  a 
font  for  immersion  in  Lambeth  Parish  church." 

While  speaking  of  Mr.  Sx)urgeon  and  this 
baptistery,  I  am  reminded  of  an  incident  which 
was  related  to  me  by  a  gentleman  who  ought 
to  know.  When  the  Baptist  General  Meetings 
were  held  in  Southampton  Mr.  Spurgeon  was 
the  guest  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wilberforce,  who 
was  a  son  of  the  distinguished  bishop  of  that 
name.  Oae  evening  the  rector  invited  some  of 
the  clergy  to  meet  Mr.  Spurgeon.  After  tea 
they  concluded  that  they  would  rout  the 
great  Dissenter,  and  they  set  upon  him  right 
royally.  The  battle  raged  till  two  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  when  the  disputation  had  taken 
such  a  turn  that  the  clergy  concluded  that  they 
had  much  the  best  of  the  argument.  But  Mr. 
Spurgeon  rallied,  and  as  a  result  of  that  night's 
discussion  a  fine  baptistery  was  placed  for  the 
purposes  of  immersion  in  the  principal  parish 
church  of  Southampton. 

Very  recently  a  list  of  more  than  one  hun- 
dred baptisteries  in  Episcopal  churches  in 
England  was  published  in  27ie  Freeman.  I 
have  myself  seen  more  than  one  such  baptist- 
ery and  a  number  of  fonts  large  enough  for  the 
immersion  of  children.  For  example,  I  saw 
in  tne  Cathedral  of  Chester  two  such  fonts,  one 
of  which  was  of  unusual  size.  There  is  a  part 
of  Canterbury  Cathedral  called  the  baptistery 
which  was  once  used  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
mersion ;  it  is  octagonal  and  united  with  the 
main  building  by  a  corridor.  The  well  known 
Dean  of  Canterbury, Dr.  Farrar,  in  a  recent 
letter  says  that  ''haptizo  means  'to  dip'  or  'sub- 
merge,'" and  then  adds  that  "the  font  at  Can- 


13 

terbury  would  suffice  for  the  immersion  of  an 
infant."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  placed 
there  for  that  very  purpose. 

The  large  parish  church  of  Canterbury  had  a 
very  large  and  fine  baptistery.  The  cathedral 
at  York  is  said  to  have  been  built  on  the  place 
where  was  formerly  a  pool  or  fountain,  in 
which  Paulinus  baptized  King  Edwin,  A.  D. 
627.  When  heathenism  passed  away  and  par- 
ish churches  were  erected,  it  became  the  cus- 
tom to  place  in  them  large  stone  fonts  or 
basins,  not  sufficient  for  the  baptism  of  adults, 
but  for  the  immersion  of  infants,  many  of 
which  of  considerable  antiquity  are  still  ex- 
tant, of  a  size  which  would  be  preposterous  if 
only  intended  for  sprinkling.  There  is  one 
large  enough  for  immersion  to  be  seen  at  St. 
Brecan's  Bed,  of  the  workmanship  of  the  sixth 
century.  One  can  trace  everywhere  and  in 
every  period  of  time  since  the  island  was  con- 
verted to  Christianity,  the  historical  monu- 
ments which  proclaim  immersion.  The  Bap- 
tists usually  immersed  their  converts  in  the 
running  streams,  but  in  their  secret  places  of 
worship  they  sometimes  erected  baptisteries. 
I  saw  two  such  baptisteries  belonging  to  the 
times  before  the  Civil  Wars.  The  one  was  at 
Eythorne  in  Kent,  hid  away  under  a  hedge 
fence,  and  only  recently  the  rains  washing 
away  the  earth  have  made  known  its  existence. 
The  other  is  at  HillCliffein  Cheshire,  which 
some  claim  belongs  to  a  period  which  ante- 
dates the  Reformation  itself. 

The  Right  Honorable  and  Right  Reverend 
MandellCreighton,D.D.,D.C.L.,LL.D.,  Bish- 
op of  London,  Principal  Dean  of  Canterbury 
and  Dean  of  the  Chapel  Royal,  the  author  of 
many  books,  is  not  only  a  very  scholarly  man, 
but  is  said  to  be  the  most  influential  church- 
man in  England .  I  give  his  letter  in  full  with- 
out comment.     He  writes: 


14 

Fulham  Palace,  S.  W.,  July,  26,  1898. 
J.  T.  Christian,  Esq: 

Dear  Sib: — Tlie  Greek  word  baptizo  prop- 
erly means  to  dip.  Baptism  in  our  Lord's  time 
was  ijert'ormed  in  the  open  air,  in  a  river  or 
pond.  Sprinkling  was  nrst  allowed  for  sick 
people  in  bed,  and  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  was  held  to  be  equally  valid.  The 
Rubric  in  the  prayer  book  recommends  dip- 
ping, "If  the  child  may  well  endure  it,  he  shall 
dip  him  in  the  water;  if  the  child  is  weak,  it 
shall  suffice  to  pourwateronit."  The  coldness 
of  our  climate  is  the  principal  reason  why 
sprinkling  has  become  universal. 

"I  know  of  no  baptistery  in  London  where 
there  is  provision  for  immersing  an  adult ;  of 
course,  an  infant  could  be  immersed." 
Yours  faithfully, 

M.  London. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  John  Sheepshankes,  D.D., 
Bishopof  Norwich,  writes:  "The  Prayer  Book 
with  its  Rubrics  shows  the  teaching  of  the 
church  with  regard  to  immersion.  I  have 
authorized  the  immersion  of  several  adults." 

The  Rt.  Rev.  the  Hon.  Augustus  Legge, 
D.D.,the  Bishop  of  Lichfield,  referred  me  to 
two  authorities  which  presented  his  views. 
The  first  is  Wharton  B.  Mariott,  M.A.,  whose 
article  is  found  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Chris- 
tian Antiquities.  Mr.  Mariott  says;  ^'Triple 
immersion,  that  is,  thrice  dipping  the  head 
while  standing  in  the  water, was  the  all  but 
universal  rule  of  the  church  in  early  times.  Of 
this  we  find  proof  in  Africa,  in  Palestine,  in 
Egypt,  at  Antioch  and  Constantinople,  in 
Capadocia." — Vol.  1.  p.  161. 

The  other  authority  to  whom  Bishop  Legge 
refers  is  Walter  F.  Hooke,D.D.,  in  his  Church 
Dictionary.  Dr.Hookesays:  "-Baptem,todip, 
and  baptizein,  to  dip  repeatedly,  or  thoroughly, 
to  bathe." — p.  76.  He  continues;  "The  place 
of  baptism  was  at  first  unlimited,  being  some 


16 

pond  or  lake,  some  spring  or  river,  but  always 
as  near  as  possible  to  the  place  of  public  wor- 
ship. Afterwards  they  had  their  baptisterie,^,  or 
fonts,  built  at  first  near  the  church,  then  in  the 
church-porch,  and  at  the  last  in  the  church  it- 
self. There  were  many  in  other  days  who 
were  desirous  to  be  baptized  in  the  river  Jor- 
dan, out  of  reverence  to  the  place  where  our 
Saviour  himself  had  been  baptized." — p.  76. 
And  again:  "In  performing  the  ceremony  of 
baptism  the  usual  custom  was  to  immerse  and 
dip  the  whole  body."  Upon  the  introduction 
of  sprinkling  he  is  equally  explicit.  He  says: 
"The  custom  of  sprinkling  children,  which  at 
first  was  allowed  in  case  of  weakness  or  sickness 
of  the  infant,  has  so  far  prevailed,  that  immer- 
sion at  length  is  almost  excluded.  What  prin- 
cipally tended  to  confirm  the  practice  of  affu- 
sion or  sprinkling,  was  that  several  of  our  Eng- 
lish divines,  flying  into  Germany  and  Switzer- 
land, during  the  bloody  reign  of  Queen  Mary, 
and  returning  home  when  Queen  Elizabeth 
came  to  the  crown,  brought  back  with  them  a 
great  zeal  for  the  Protestant  churches  beyond 
sea  where  they  had  been  sheltered  and  re- 
ceived ;  and  having  observed  that  at  Geneva 
(Calvin  Instit.  lib,  iv.  c.  16.)  and  some  other 
places  baptism  administered  by  sprinkling, 
they  thought  they  could  not  do  the  Church  of 
England  a  greater  piece  of  service  than  by  in- 
troducing a  practice  dictated  by  so  great  an  or- 
acle as  Calvin.  This  together  with  the  cold- 
ness of  our  western  climate,  was  what  contrib- 
uted to  banish  entirely  the  practice  of  dipping 
infants  in  the  font. "--p.  79. 

TheEt.  Rev.  Earnest  R.  Wilberforce, Bishop 
of  Chichester,  refers  me  to  Bishop  Browne, 
whom  I  have  already  quoted,  and  to  Blunt's 
Dictionary  of  Doctrinal  and  Historical  Theol- 
ogy. Blunt  says:  '-From  all  which  illustra- 
tions we  may  gather  the  meaning  of  a  thorough 
cleansing,  as  by  immersion  or  Washing,  and 


16 

not  by  mere  affusion  and  sprinkling  a  tew 
drops  of  water.  The  bathing  of  Naaman  and 
Judith  was  by  immersion ;  cups  and  dishes 
were  not  cleansed  by  a  few  drops  of  water,  but 
by  a  thorough  washing ;  and  the  comparison 
of  our  Lord's  suffering  to  baptism  is  intended 
to  show  how  thorough  and  overwhelming,  as 
it  were,  was  their  nature.  Hence,  as  might  be 
supposed,  the  primitive  mode  of  baptism  was 
by  immersion,  as  we  learn  by  the  clear  testi- 
mony of  holy  Scripture  and  of  the  fathers. 
Thus  John  baptized  in -3Enon,  near  Salim  (John 
iii.  23),  'because  there  was  much  water  there,' 
and  Christ  after  baptism  'ascended  out  of  the 
water.'  We  cannot  doubt  in  these  cases  that 
there  was  an  immersion,  for  it  is  shown  from 
the  Baptist's  reasons  for  baptizing  in  ^non, 
and  Christ's  ascending  from  the  waters  of  Jor- 
dan. St.  Paul's  language,  however,  is  more 
explicit;  he  speaks  of  our  being  buried  with 
Christ  in  Baptism  (Rom  vi.4;  Col.  ii.l2),  a^id 
with  the  same  illustration  in  view  that  Chris- 
tians die  with  Christ,  and  are  raised  with  him 
(Rom.  6.11;  Col.  ii.20,  iii.3),  are  immersed  in 
the  baptismal  water,  and  arise  from  it  as  our 
Liord  from  his  burial  in  the  tomb." — -p.  75. 

The  Bishop  of  Chichester  also  refers  me  to 
Bingham.  Joseph  Bingham  is  quite  clear  on 
this  point.  He  says:  "The  antients  thought 
that  immersion,  or  burying  under  water,  did 
more  lively  represent  the  death  and  burial  and 
resurrection,  as  well  as  our  death  unto  sin,  and 
rising  again  unto  righteousness ;  and  the  di- 
vesting or  unclothing  the  person  to  be  Bap- 
tized did  also  represent  the  putting  off  the 
body  of  sin,  in  order  to  put  on  the  new  man, 
which  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  liol- 
iness.  For  which  reason  they  observed  the 
way  of  baptizing  all  persons  naked  and  divest- 
ed, by  a  total  immersion  under  water,  except 
in  some  particular  cases  of  great  exigence, 
wherein  they  allowed  of  sprinkling,  as  in  the 


case  of  clinic  baptism,  or  where  there  was  a 
scarcity  of  water." — Antiquities  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  ^ook  XI.,  chapter  xi.,  sect.  1. 
Bingham  further  says :  "As  this  was  the  orig- 
inal Apostolic  practice,  so  it  continued  to  be 
the  universal  practice  of  the  church  for  many 
ages,  upon  the  same  symbolical  reasons  as  it 
was  first  used  by  the  Apostles." 

The  Rt.  Rev.  Henry  Bickersteth,D.D., Bish- 
op of  Exeter,  and  author  of  that  beautiful 
poem,  "Yesterday,  To-day  and  Forever,"  re- 
ferred me  to  Harold  Browne's  book,  and  his 
chaplain  suggested  I  might  find  the  bishop's 
opinion  in  his  Practical  Commentary  on  the 
Holy  Bible.  On  Matt.  3:7-12  Bishop  Bicker- 
stethsays:  "The  Jews  were  accustomed  to 
this  rite  froro  the  habit  of  thus  receiving  pros- 
elytes. It  was  administered  in  the  daytime 
by  immersion,  whole  families,  including  in- 
fants, beingbaptized  together;  and  while  stand- 
ing in  the  water,  the  proselytes  were  instruct- 
ed in  certain  portions  of  the  law." 

In  the  poem,  "Yesterday,  To-day  and  For- 
ever," referred  to  above,  Bishop  Bickersteth 
beautifully  illustrates  the  classical  use  of  bap- 
tizo.  Aratus,  describing  the  setting  of  the  con- 
stellation Cephes  in  latitude  sixty-nine  or 
seventy  degrees,  calls  it  baptizing  or  plunging 
his  upper  parts  into  the  sea;  and,  "also  if  the 
sun  baptizes  himself  without  a  cloud  into  the 
western  sea."  These  expressions  are  often 
found  in  the  poets.    Bickersteth  says: 

"The  sun. 
Who  climbing  the  meridian  steep  of    heaven, 
Shone  with  a  monarch's  glory,  till  he  dipp'd 
His  footsteps  in  the  ruddy  western  waves." 

And  again : 
"It  was  golden  eventide.    The  sun 
"Was  sinking  through  the  roseate  clouds  to  rest 
Beneath  the  western  waves." 

He  speaks  thus  of  the  work  of  the  Baptist: 


18 

"Jerusalem 
Hurried  to  Jordan.    'Ah,  what  deeds  of  wrong 
Lips,  counted  by  their  fellows  as  pure  as  babes, 
Flung  then  upon  startled  winds !    What  fllth 
Was  wash'd  away  from  penitential  hearts 
In  that  baptismal  stream." 

Of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  he  says : 
"John,  abash'd. 
Shrank  from  the  suit  he  urged.   But  he  refused 
Refusal.    And,  as  from  the  shallow  ford 
Returning,  on  the  bank  he  knelt  in  prayer." 

The  poet  also  throws  light  on  the  much  dis- 
puted passage.  Rev.  19:13:  "And  he  was 
clothed  in  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood."  Ha 
says: 

"Who  knows  not 
The  loves  of  David  and  young  Jonathan, 
When  in  unwitting  rivalry  of  hearts 
The  son  of  Jesse  won  a  nobler  wreath 
Than  garlands  pluck'd  in  war  and  dipp'd  in 
blood." 

In  another  passage  he  expressly  refers  to  this 
passage : 

"The  Lord  of  hosts, 
Apparell'd  in  a  vesture  dipp'd  in  blood." 
John  the  Baptist  said  that  Christ  when  he  , 
came,  would  baptize  the  wicked  in  the  fires  of 
hell.    Bickersteth,  in  the    "Millennial    Sab- 
bath," catches  the  spirit  of  this  when  he  de- 
scribes how  God  utterly  ruined  some  of  the 
fallen  angels : 

"He  hurled  them  down 
Like    meteors    through    the  lurid    vault,  and 

flx'd 
Their  adamantine  fetters  to  a  rock 
Of  adamant,  submerged,  not  sonsumed, 
Beneath  the  lake  of  fire." 
And  the  wicked  sank — 
"Still  down,  still  ever  down,  from  deep  to  deep^ 


19 

Into  the  outer  darkness,  till  at  last 
The  fiery  gulf  received  them,  and  they  plunged 
Beneath  Gehennah's  sulphureous  waves 
In  the  abyss  of  ever  enduring  woe." 

This  poet  also  gives  us  a  significant  exposi- 
tion of  the  "baptism  of  suffering:" 

"The  Sun 
Of  Righteousness,  with  liealing  in  his  wings, 
Has  risen  upon  a  world  weary  of  night: 
Most  glorious,  when  emergent  from  the  flood 
That  from  far  Lebanon  to  Kadesh  roll'd 
Its  waves  of  fire  baptismal,  Zion  rose 
In  perfect  beauty." 

III. 

This  statement,  of  course,  clearly  points  to 
the  act  of  Baptism  by  immersion. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  Charles  John  Ellicott,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  Glouster,  is  well  known  to  all.  He 
writes:  "Excuse  a  very  busy  man  only 
answering  question  4.  The  other  questions 
you  will  be  able  to  answer  yourself  through 
Prof.  Thayer's  edition  of  Grimm's  Lexicon  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  Bingham's  Antiqui- 
ties. As  to  question  4,  the  Church  of  England 
would  not,  I  believe,  refuse  immersion  if  asked 
for."  Without  requoting  Thayer  and  Bing- 
ham, I  shall  present  the  Bishop's  own  words 
as  taken  from  his  New  Testament  Commen- 
tary. On  Matthew  3:1,  he  says:  "The  baptism 
was,  as  the  name  implied,  an  immersion,  and 
commonly,  though  not  necessarily,  in  running 
water."  On  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
Matt.  8:11, he  says:  "As  heard  and  under- 
stood at  the  time,  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  would  imply  that  the  souls  baptized 
would  be  plunged,  as  it  were,  in  that  creative 
and  informing  Spirit  which  was  the  source  of 
hope  and  holiness  and  wisdom."  And  in  the 
parallel  passage,  Acts  1 :5,  vol.  1,  p.  2,  he  also 
says:  "Now  they  were  told  that  their  spirits 
were  to  be  as  fully  baptized,  i.  e.,  plunged  into- 


20 

the  power  of  the  divine  Spirit,  as  their  bodies 
had  been  plunged  into  the  waters  of  the  Jor- 
dan." 

In  the  passage  Mark  7:1-4,  which  is  largely- 
used  as  a  proof  text  for  sprinkling,  the  wash- 
ing of  pots,  etc.,  Bishop  Ellicott  says:  "The 
Greek  verb  differs  from  that  of  the  previous 
verse,  and  implies  the  washing  or  immersion 
(the  verbis  that  from  which  our  word 'bap- 
tize' comes  to  us)  of  the  whole  body,  as  the 
former  does  of  part.  The  idea  on  which  the 
practice  rested  was  not  one  of  cleanliness  or 
health,  but  of  arrogant  exclusiveness,  f  sten- 
ing  on  the  thought  of  ceremonial  i)urity.  They 
might  have  come,  in  the  crowd  of  the  market, 
into  passing  contact  with  a  Gentile,  and  his 
touch  was  as  defiling  as  a  corpse.  So,  too, 
the  washing  of  cups  and  the  like  was  because 
they  might  have  been  touched  by  a  heathen, 
and  therefore  impure  lips." 

On  Acts  8:37,  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch, 
Bishop  Ellicott  remarks:  "The  Greek  prepo- 
sition might  mean  simply 'unto'  the  water,  but 
the  universality  of  immersion  in  toe  practice 
of  the  early  church  supports  the  English 
version.  The  eunuch  would  lay  aside  his  gar- 
ments, descend  chest  deep  into  the  water,  and 
be  plunged  under  it  'in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus' — the  only  formula  recognized  in  the 
Acts."     (Com.  vol.  2,  p.  64 

He  also  declares  that  the  immersion  of  the 
jailer.  Acts  16:27-34,  was  perfectly  possible. 
His  words  are:  "A  public  prison  was  likely 
enough  to  contain  a  bath  or  pool  of  some  kind, 
where  the  former  (immersion)  would  be  feas- 
ible."   Ellicott,  Com.,  vol.  2,  p.  109.) 

Bishop  Ellicott  further  says:  "Jewish 
ablutions  .  .  .  had  nothing  in  common  with 
the  figurative  act  which  portrayed  through 
immersion  the  complete  disappearance  of  the 
old  nature,  and  by  emerging  again,  the  begin- 


ning  of  a  totally  new  life."  (Life  of  Christ, 
p.  110.) 

The  Rt.  Rev.  Randall  Thomas  Davidson, 
D.D  ,  is  Bishop  of  Winchester.  He  is  a  great 
favorite  with  the  Queen  and  is  said  to  owe  his 
appointment  to  her  influence,  The  Queen  re- 
cently bestowed  on  him  the  distinguished 
honor  "Prelate  of  the  order  of  the  Garter." 
The  Bishop  thanked  me  for  my  letter  and  re- 
ferred me  to  some  authorities  already  quoted. 
"As  to  the  position  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  the  matter,"  says  he,  "the  Bishop  thinks  that 
it  is  sufficiently  defined  by  the  two  rubrics  in 
the  Prayer  Book, 'The  Ministration  of  public 
Baptism  of  Infants.' "  "In  answer  to  your  last 
enquiry,''  the  Bishop  continues,  "at  least  one 
important  church  in  this  Diocese  posseses  a 
font  for  the  immersion  of  adults." 

Dr.  W.  Boyd  Carpenter,  Bishop  of  Rippon, 
in  "The  Great  Charter  of  Christ,"  p.  156,  says: 
"The  old  heathen  held  his  right  arm  aloft  out 
of  the  baptismal  water,  refusing  to  consecrate 
to  holier  uses  the  arm  which  had  struck  down 
his  foes,  and  which  should  do  so  again.  He  at 
least  declined  to  pretend  to  accept  Christ's  com- 
plete sovereignty  over  him.  But  many  baptized 
Christians  keep  up  the  show  of  faith  in  Christ, 
and  yet  break  the  law  which  Christ  conse- 
crated by  His  sanction," 

The  Rt.  Rev.  George  Rodney  Eden,  D.D. , 
Bishop  of  Wakefield,  referred  me  to  a  long  list 
of  authorities.  I  shall  quote  such  as  have  not 
been  already  given.  For  the  meaning  of  the 
word  he  refers  me  to  Sophocles  Lexicon. 
Sophocles  defines  the  word ' '  to  dip ,  to  immerse , 
to  sink."  He  then  remarks:  "There  is  no 
evidence  that  Luke  and  Paul  and  the  other 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  put  upon  this 
verb  meanings  not  recognized  by  the  Greeks." 

Singular  enough  the  next  two  writers  to 
whom  the  Bishop  of  Wakefield  refers  are  the 
two  well-known  Baptists,  D.  B.  Ford,  Studies 


22 

on  the  Baptismal  Question,  and  T.  J.  Conant, 
Baptizein.  Dr.  Conant  says:  ''From  the  pre- 
ceding example  it  appears,  that  the  ground 
idea  expressed  in  this  word  is  'to  put  in  or  un- 
der the  water,  (or  other  penetrable  substance), 
so  as  to  entirely  immerse  or  subraerge  ;' that 
this  act  is  always  expressed  in  the  literal  ap- 
plication of  the  word,  and  is  the  basis  of  its 
metaphorical  uses.  This  ground  idea  is  ex- 
pressed in  English ,  in  the  various  connections 
where  the  word  occurs,  by  the  terms  (synony- 
mous in  this  ground  element)  to  immerse,  im- 
merge,  submerge,  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  imbathe, 
to  whelm." 

The  only  authority  that  he  suggests  as  favor- 
able to ''affusion"  is  "the  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles."  It  is  significant  that  the 
New  Testament  is  not  quoted  as  favorable  to 
sprinkling.  The  Bishop  calls  my  attention  to 
the  Baptistery  inCranabrook,  Kent,  "as  a  good 
example."  The  Eector  of  that  church  says 
that  the  baptistery  was  built  in  1720.  The 
JBishop  concludes :  "Our  fonts  are  large  enough 
for  dipping  infants  and  if  adults  demanded  it, 
arrangements  would  be  made  for  their  immer- 
sion." 

The  Rev.  John  Percival,  D.D.,  Bishop  of 
Hereford, endorses  the  meaning  of  the  word  as 
laid  down  in  Grimm  which  we  have  already 
seen  (in  Thayer)  means  to  dip. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  John  Wogan  Festing,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  St.  Albans,  refers  me  to  Wall's  His- 
tory of  Infant  Baptism  and  to  Dr.  Gibson  on 
the  Thirty  Nine  Articles.  Dr.  Wall  says: 
"Their  general  and  ordinary  way  was  to  bap- 
tize by  immersion,  or  dipping  the  person, 
whether  it  were  an  infant,  or  grown  man  or 
woman,  into  the  water.  This  is  so  plain  and 
clear  by  an  infinite  number  of  passages,  that, 
as  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  endeavours  of 
such  Psedobaptists  as  would  maintain  the  neg- 
ative of  it,  so  also  we  ought  to  disown  and. 


show  a  dislike  of  the  profane  scoffs  which 
some  people  give  to  the  English  auti-Psedo- 
baptists  merely  for  their  use  of  dipping." 

And  Dr.  G.  S.  Gibson,  whom  the  Bishop 
endorses,  in  the  only  place  in  which  he  refers 
to  the  act  of  baptism,  quotes  with  approval 
the  words  of  the  late  scholarly  Bishop  Light- 
foot,  which  are  as  follows:  Baptism  is  the 
grave  ot  the  old  man  (Col.  2:12),  and  the  birth 
of  the  new.  As  he  sinks  beneath  the  baptis- 
mal waters,  the  believer  buries  there  all  his 
corrupt  affections  and  past  sins;  as  he  emerges 
thence,  he  rises  regenerate,  quickened   to  new 

hopes  and  a  new  life Thus  baptism  is 

an  image  of  his  participation  both  in  the  death 
and  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ."  '-It  is 
obvious,"  the  Bishop  adds,  "how  much  the 
dramatic  impression  of  baptism  and  its  repre- 
sentative force  is  increased  where  immersion 
is  the  method  employed."    Vol.  2,  p.  622,  note. 

The  Rev.  William  Alexander,  D.D.,LL.D., 
D.C.L.,  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  writes  as  fol- 
lows: 

Eagle  IjOdgk,  Woodhall,  Lincolnshire.     ) 

August  1,  1898.    ) 

JoHX  T.  Christian,  LL.D.,  London: 

My  Dear  Sir : — I  am  not  well  and  away  from 
my  books,  so  I  will  attempt  to  say  but  little. 

I  cannot  produce  offhand  at  what  date 
sprinkling  (or  pouring)  was  substituted  for  im- 
mersion. I  take  it  that  the  substitution  came 
from  our  colder  climate  very  much.  Yet  even 
the  rubric  in  our  Service  for  the  Public  Baptism 
of  infants  supposes  dipping  to  be  the  ordinary 
practice,  and  this  must  be  the  attitude  of 
the  Church  of  England  and  Ireland  (the- 
oretically) towards  Baptism. 

In  my  present  See  there  is  no  Baptistery, 
but  when  my  clergy  have  adults  to  baptize,  I 
always  instruct  them  to  find  out  if  immersion 
Is  desired  and  in  that  case  to  prepare  a  font  or 
a  laver,  which   is  easily  done,  though   not  of 


stately  structure.  The  symbolism  of  Rom.  vi^ 
is,  of  course,  rauch  more  strikingly  brought 
out  by  immersion. 

Yours  Most  Truly, 

William,  Armagh. 

The  Rt.  Rev.  J.  C.  Ryle,  D.D.,  Bishop  of 
Liverpool,  writes:  "I  do  not  think  there  are 
any  baptisteries  in  my  Diocese,  though  I  re- 
member there  were  some  in  the  county  of  Suf- 
folk when  I  had  a  church  there.  If  an  adult 
I)erson  wishes  to  be  baptized  by  immersion, 
the  clergyman  ought  to  make  i^rovision  for  it." 
In  his  book  on  Baptism,  pp.  10,  11,  Bishop 
Ryle  has  given  us  a  clear  statement  of  the  at- 
titude of  the  Church  of  England  toward  im- 
mersion. He  says:  "The  Baptismal  service 
expressly  sanctions 'dipping'  in  the  most  plain 
terms.  To  say,  as  many  Baptists  do,  that  the 
Church  of  England  is  opposed  to  baptism  by 
immersion  is  a  melancholy  proof  of  the  igno- 
rance in  which  many  Dissenters  live.  Thou- 
sands, I  am  afraid,  find  fault  with  the  Prayer- 
book  without  ever  leaving  examined  its  eon- 
tents.  If  any  one  wishes  to  be  baptized  by 
'dipping'  in  the  Church  of  England,  let  him 
understand  that  the  parish  clergyman  is  just 
as  ready  to  dip  him  as  tlie  Baptist  and  that 
'immersion'  may  be  had  in  Church  as  well  as 
in  Chapel." 

The  Right  Rev.  J.  Wordsworth,  D.D.,  wno 
is  a  son  of  the  distinguislied  poet  of  that  name, 
referred  me  to  the  Greek  lexicons  and  to  Wall 
on  Infant  Baptism  which  we  have  already 
quoted  and  found  to  be  so  favorable  to  immer- 
sion. 

The  Right  Rev.  B.  F.  Westcott,  D.D.,the 
distinguished  author  and  scholar  and  Bishop 
of  Durham,  endorses  the  definition  of  Thayer 
in  his  lexicon  that  haptizo  means  to  dip  and 
gays:  "The  mind  of  the  Church  of  England 
is  clearly  expressed  in  the  Rubrics  of  the  Ser- 
vice ;  and  there  is,  I  think,  a  growing  desire  tO' 


restore  immersion,  especially  in  the  case  of 
adults.  I  am  not  aware  thiat  there  is  any  per- 
manent provision  for  the  immersion  of  adults 
in  this  Diocese — most  of  the  fonts  are  for  the 
immersion  of  infants — but  I  have  heard  of 
temporary  provisions  being  made." 

The  Right  Rev.  John  Owen,  D.D.,  Bishop  of 
St.  David's,  writes:  "I  will  only  add  that 
several  churches  of  this  Diocese  have  baptist- 
eries and  that  adult  candidates  are  baptised 
by  immersion  when  they  desire  it."  Notonly 
in  the  Diocese  of  Bishop  Owen  but  through- 
out Wales  in  many  of  the  parish  churches 
there  are  baptisteries.  I  know  that  in  the  im- 
portant church  of  St.  John,  Cardiff,  where 
Canon  E.  T,  Thompson,  M.A.,  D.D.,  is  Vickar. 
This  baptistery  was  erected  when  alterations 
were  made  in  the  church  in  1892  at  the  request 
of  the  Vickar. 

IV. 

I  shall  conclude  this  part  of  the  presentation 
of  my  testimony  with  the  words  of  a  few  well 
known  scholars. 

Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D,,a  mem- 
ber of  the  Anglican  church,  a  professor  of  Ox- 
ford, and  one  of  the  most  eminent  scholars  in 
the  English-speaking  world,  has  recently  pub- 
lished a  critical  and  exegetical  commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  In  his  treat- 
ment of  this  epistle,  the  author  first  gives  a 
brief  summary  of  the  portion  under  considera- 
tion, then  a  paraphrase,  and  follows  this  by  a 
comment  on  the  Greek  text,  and  by  notes  upon 
the  leading  thought  of  the  passage.  Under 
chapter  6:1-14,  his  summary,  in  part,  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Baptism  has  a  double  function.  (1)  It 
brings  the  Christian  into  personal  contact  with 
Christ,  so  close  that  it  naay  fitly  be  described 
as  union  with  him.  (2)  It  expresses  symbol- 
ically a  series  of  acts  corresponding  to  the  re- 


deeming  acts  of  Christ;  Immersion — death; 
submersion — burial  (the  ratification  of  death) ; 
emergence—resurrec  tion . 

"All  these  the  Christian  has  to  undergo  in  a 
moral  and  spiritual  sense,  by  means  of  his 
union  with  Christ.  As  Christ  by  his  death  on 
the  cross  ceased  from  all  contact  with  sin,  so 
the  Christian,  united  with  Christ  in  his  bap- 
tism, has  done  once  for  all  with  sin,  and  lives 
hence  a  reformed  life  dedicated  to  God.  (This 
at  least  is  the  ideal,  whatever  may  be  the  real- 
ity.) Act,  then,  as  men  who  have  thrown  off 
the  dominion  of  sin.  Dedicate  all  your  pow- 
ers to  God.  Be  not  afraid;  Law,  sin's  ally,  is 
superseded  in  its  hold  over  you  by  grace." 

We  quote  also  from  liis  paraplarase  of  the 
passage:  "All  of  us  who  were  immersed  or 
baptized.  .  .  .into  Christ — i.  e.,  into  the  closest 
allegiance  or  adhesion  to  him,  were  so  im- 
mersed or  baptized  into  a  special  relation  to 
his  death.  I  mean  tliat  the  Christian,  at  his 
baptism,  not  only  professes  obedience  to 
Christ,  but  enters  into  a  relation  to  him  so  in- 
timate that  it  may  be  described  as  actual 
union.  When  we  descended  into  the  baptis- 
mal water,  that  meant  that  we  died  with  Christ 
to  sin.  When  the  water  closed  over  our  heads 
that  meant  that  we  lay  buried  with  him,  in 
proof  that  our  deatli  to  sin,  like  liis  death,  was 
real.  We  must  also  henceforth  conduct  our- 
selves as  men  in  whom  has  been  planted  a  new 
principle  of  life." 

In  his  notes  upon  the  passage.  Dr.  Sanday 
says :  "That  plunge  beneath  the  running  wat- 
ers was  like  a  death;  the  moment's  pause, 
while  they  swept  on  overliead,  was  like  a 
burial ;  the  standing  erect  once  more  in  air  and 
sunlight  was  a  species  of  resurrection.  Nor 
did  the  likeness  reside  only  in  the  outward 
rite;  it  extended  to  its  inner  significance.  To 
wliat  was  it  the  Christian  died?  He  died  to 
his  old  self,  to  all  that  he  had  been,  whether 


27 

as  Jew  or  Gentile,  before  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian. To  what  did  he  rise  again?  Clearly  to 
the  new  life  to  which  the  Christian  was  bound 
over;  and,  in  this  special  death  and  resurrec- 
tion, the  great  moving  factor  was  that  one 
fundamental  principle  of  union  with  Christ, 
identification  of  will  with  his." 

The  Rev.  Edward  Hamilton  Gifford,  D.D., 
of  Oxford,  and  formerly  Archdeacon  of  Lon- 
don, and  Canon  of  St.  Paul's, gives  a  very 
elaborate  introduction  to  his  translation  of 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  in  which  he  affirms  that 
in  St.  Cyril's  time  baptism  was  performed  by 
dipping.— Vol.  VII.,  p.  24. 

Archdeacon  GifEord,  in  his  Commentary  on 
Romans,  published  in  the  Speakers'  Commen- 
tary, p.  126,  further  says:  '' 'Baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ.'  To  be  baptized  into  Christ  is  to 
be  brought  by  baptism  into  union  with  him : 
but  the  original  word  represents  this  union  in 
a  vivid  picture,  which  we  can  only  repro- 
duce by  using  some  less  familiar  word  'im- 
mersed INTO  CHRIST,'  'immersed  into  his 
DEATH.'  So  the  Israelites  are  baid  figuratively 
to  have  been  'all  baptized  unto  (into)  Moses 
in  the  cloud  and  the  sea,'  and  were  thus  united 
with  Moses  as  their  deliverer  whom  they  trust- 
ed, their  leader  whom  they  followed,  and  their 
mediator  in  whose  covenant  they  shared.  .  .  . 

"The  expression, 'we  were  buried,'  may  have 
been  suggested  by  the  momentary  burial  be- 
neath the  baptismal  water  (see  Bingham's 
Antiq.  xi.  xi.-4) :  it  declares  in  the  strongest 
manner  our  union  with  Christ  in  death,  and 
our  entire  separation  from  the  former  life  in 
which  sin  reigned." 

Principal  Handley  C.  G.  Moule,  giving  a 
paraphrase  of  the  passage  above-named: "For 
if  we  became  vitally  connected,  He  with  us 
and  we  with  him,  by  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
by  the  baptismal  plunge,  symbol  and  seal  of 
our  faJth-union  with  the  Buried  Sacrifice,  why 

13 


vre  shall  be  vitally  connected  with  him  by  the 
likeness  of  his  resurrection,  by  the  baptismal 
emergence,  symbol  and  seal  of  our  faith-union 
with  the  Risen  Lord,  and  so  with  his  risen 
power." — "Romans"  (Expositors'  Bible)  page 
164. 

One  of  the  most  popular  preachers  in  Eng- 
land is  the  Rev.  William  Sinclair,  the  Arch- 
deacon of  London,  and  resident  Canon  of  St. 
Paul's.  Upon  the  17th  of  July  I  heard  him 
preach  a  sermon  which  would  be  acceptable 
in  doctrine,  for  the  most  part,  to  any  Baptist 
church  in  this  land.  His  text  was  Rom.  6:4. 
I  immediately  souglit  an  interview,  was  in- 
vited to  tea,  and  out  of  the  Archdeacon  s  man- 
uscript I  took  the  following  extract:  ''Buried 
loith  Christ  by  baptism  into  deafh.  Baptism  is  re- 
garded as  the  type  of  the  renunciation  of  sin. 
The  act  of  going  down  into  water  until  the 
waves  close  over  our  head  is  intended  to  shew 
the  completeness  of  our  rejection  and  repudia- 
tion of  all  that  is  old  and  sinful.  It  is  a  death 
unto  sin,  and  a  new  life  uuto  righteousness. 
The  substitute  by  sprinkling,  though  necessary 
in  this  climate,  tends  to  obliterate  this  truths 
Baptism  doth  represent  unto  us  our  profession, 
which  is  that  we  should  follow  the  example  of 
our  Saviour  Christ ;  and  tliat,  as  he  died  and 
rose  again,  so  we  should  die  to  sin  and  rise 
again  unto  newness  of  life ;  continually  morti- 
fying all  of  the  corrupt  affections  and  daily 
proceeding  in  all  virtue  and  godliness  of  liv- 
ing. 'The  sacrament  of  baptism  is  one  thing,' 
says  St.  Augustine,  'and  the  conversion  to 
Christ  is  another;  but  the  salvation  of  man  is 
completed  by  them  both.'  " 

My  observation  was  that  the  Rev.  Charles 
Gore,  Canon  of  Westminster  Abbey,  was  the 
most  popular  preacher  in  England.  The 
Abbey  is  always  thronged  when  he  preaches. 
He  has  been  preaching  a  series  of  sermons  on 
the  book  of  Romans.    Canon  Gore  is  tall,  with 


29 


a  strong  face  and  head.  He  looks  a  scholar 
and  gives  the  suggestion  of  a  recluse.  His 
delivery  is  slow  and  clear,  his  voice  is  power- 
ful and  re-echoes  through  the  abbey.  He  held 
a  Bible  and  spoke  apparently  extemporaneous- 
ly. There  were  no  striking  passages,  no  clever 
antithetical  sentences,  no  embellishing  figures, 
no  original  illustrations.  All  was  solid, 
thoughtful  exposition.  Yet  an  audience  as 
large  as  could  be  gathered  round  him  to  hear 
his  words  listened  with  wrapt  attention  for 
some  fifty  minutes,  most  of  them  after  having 
been  in  their  seats  an  hour  previously.  I  give 
a  verbatim  report  of  the  Canon's  words  on 
Eom.  6:4;  "This  crucifixion  of  Christ  was  no 
accident,  no  accidental  fact.  It  means  some- 
thing morally.  It  has  a  moral  counterpart,  a 
moral  meaning.  Why  was  he  crucified?  Why 
did  the  world  put  him  to  death?  Because,, 
first  of  all,  he  was  dead  to  the  world.  That  is 
the  point.  Why  was  it  that  Caiaphas  and  the 
selfish  and  ambitious  Jews  hated  him? 
Why  did  the  Pharisees  with  their  respect- 
able religion  hate  Him?  Because 
he  was  utterly  outside  their  point  of  view.^ 
They  would  not  have  him  because  he  would 
uot  have  them  as  they  were.  He  wanted 
a  radical  and  fundamental  change  in  them. 
The  worldly  world  crucified  Christ  because,, 
first  of  all,  all  through  his  life  Christ  was  mor- 
ally dead  to  all  the  motives  and  ambitions  of 
sin  or  of  the  worldly  world.  St.  Paul,  there- 
fore, says— There  you  see  the  moral  meaning- 
of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection.  That  is 
the  moral  counterpart  of  his  life  through 
death— that  living  to  God  through  being  dead 
to  the  world,  dead  to  sin.  And  that  is  the  one 
law  of  Christ  s  life.  It  sums  itself  up  in  that 
one  principle.  If  you  want  to  live  Christ's 
life,  you  must  die  in  Christ's  death.  If  you 
want  to  live  to  God,  you  must  die  to  sin  and 
the  world.    And   the   very  symbolism  in  the 


30 

ritual  of  baptism  is  meant  to  impress  that 
upon  you,  and  nothing  else.  What  is, says  St. 
Paul,  the  ritual  of  baptism?  You  were  brought 
to  the  water,  and  then  you  were  bowed  down 
into  the  water,  and  then  you  were  immersed 
under  the  water,  and  then  you  rose  again  out 
of  the  water.  What  did  that  represent?  You 
knew  quite  well  when  you  came  to  be  baptized 
what  it  meant.  It  meant  that  you  were  going 
down  out  of  the  old  world  in  the  likeness  of 
Christ's  death,  and  that  you  were  being  buried 
like  Christ  in  the  tomb  away  from  the  old  life, 
and  that  you  rose  again  like  Christ  out 
of  the  tomb  into  the  new  life.  That 
is  the  very  meaning  of  your  baptism. 
That  is  the  very  meaning  of  your  new  life. 
You  have  died  to  one  sort  of  living  in  order 
that  you  may  live  to  another  sort  of  living, 
and  you  now— you  baptized  Christians— live  in 
the  Divine  life  which  knows  no  death,  with 
the  risen  Christ;  and  therefore  the  one  plain 
obligation  of  your  life  is  to  yield  yourselves  in 
the  power  of  the  gift  of  grace  as  moral  instru- 
ments to  do  God's  will,  for  that  is  another 
characteristic  of  your  new  life." 

In  a  letter  which  the  Canon  wrote  me  he 
said :  "Of  course  the  symbolism  is  much  more 
complete  where  the  baptism  is  by  immer- 
sion." 

It  has  been  evident  to  those  who  have  fol- 
lowed the  testimony  as  given  above  tliat  it  is 
fully  conceded  that  sprinkling  and  pouring 
have  been  substituted  lor  immersion,  and  that 
immersion  was  the  primitive  act  of  baptism. 
I  could  present  a  great  number  of  Ei-glish 
Episcopalians  who  frankly  admit  this  proposi- 
tion. 1  shall  give  only  a  few  additional  auth- 
ors. The  Kev.  Henry  Wace,  D.D.,  Principal 
of  King's  College,  London,  is  editing  a  select 
library  of  Niceue  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers. 
Twelve  volumes  have  already  appeared.  In 
these  volumes  it  is  stated  over  and  over  again 


81 

that  the  original  act  of  baptism  was  immer- 
sion, and  the  word  is  frequently  translated  to 
dip  or  to  im.merse,  but  never  to  sprinkle.  The 
volume  on  St.  Jerome,  is  edited  and  trans- 
lated by  the  Hon.  W.  H.  Freemantle,  M.  A., 
Canon  of  Canterbury  Cathedral  and  Fellow 
and  Tutor  of  Balliol  College,  Oxford,  with  the 
assistance  of  the  Rev.  G.  Lewis,  M.A,,  and  the 
Rev.  W.  A,  Hartley, M.A.,  both  of  Balliol 
CoUege.  These  gentlemen,  after  translating 
a  passage  from  Jerome  where  baptizo  is  ren- 
dered "to  dip,"  adds  the  following  note: 
"Triple  immersion,  that  is  thrice  dipping  the 
head  while  standing  in  the  water,  was  the  all 
but  universal  rule  of  the  church  in  early  times. 
There  is  proof  of  its  existence  in  Africa,  Pales- 
tine, Egypt,  at  Antioch  and  Constantinople, 
in  Cappadocia  and  Rome.  See  Basil  on  the 
Holy  Spirit.  4  66,  and  Apostolical  Canons.' 
Vol.  VI.,  p.  324. 

Of  the  time  of  Gregory  Nizianzen  we  have 
the  statement  of  Charles  Gordon  Browne, 
M.A.,  rector  of  Lympstone, Devon ;  and  James 
Edward  Swallow,  M.A.,  chaplain  of  the  House 
of  Mercy,  Hornbury,  that  '■'baptizesthai  is  some- 
times used  in  the  sense  of  to  be  drowned.  The 
word  primarily  means  to  immerse,  and  this, 
of  course,  when  applied  to  a  ship,  is  to 
sink  her.  The  practice  of  immersion  in  holy 
baptism  was  undouptedly  used  in  the  primi- 
tive ages,  except  where  in  cases  of  necessity 
persons  were  baptized  in  sickness,  or  in  pris- 
on in  cases  of  sentence  of  death ;  and  in  such 
cases  this  "clinic"  baptism,  though  recognized 
as  valid,  and  therefore  not  to  be  repeated,  was 
viewed  as  irregular,  and  disqualified  its  recip- 
ient from  subsequently  receiving  Holy  Orders. 
Affusion  was  gradually  allowed,  probably  for 
climatic  reasons,  to  become  the  prevailing 
practice  in  the  West,  though  immersion  pre- 
dominated as  late  as  the  twelfth  century." — 
Vol.  VII.,  p.  362. 


82 

The  Rev.  Bloomfield  Jackson,  M.A.,  Vicar 
of  St.  Bartholomew's  and  Fellow  of  King's 
College,  says  of  baptism  in  the  time  of  Basil 
the  Great :  "Trine  immersion  was  the  univers- 
al rule  of  the  Catholic  church."  He  then 
quotes  a  number  of  authorities  to  make  good 
his  claim. 

After  the  article  was  in  type,  the  following 
statement  was  clipped  from  the  Leecfs  Mercui-y, 
England,  Dec.  13,  which  goes  to  show  the  prev- 
alence of  immersion  among  the  Episco- 
palians, and  that  they  are  even  willing  to  use 
a  Baptist  baptistery :  "The  request  of  the  Rev. 
Canon  Cremer,  rector  of  Keighley,  to  be  al- 
lowed the  use  of  the  baptistery  at  the  Albert- 
street  Baptist  Chapel,  Keighley,  for  a  candi- 
date who  wished  for  admission  into  the  Church 
of  England  by  the  ancient  forms  of  the  rite, 
was  courteously  acceded  to  by  tlie  pastor  and 
deacons.  The  church  of  England  service  'for 
such  as  are  of  riper  years'  was  gone  through, 
the  Rev.  F.  G.  Ackerley,  curate  assisting,  and 
the  rector  administered  baptism  by  immer- 
sion." 

It  would  seem  from  the  statements  given  by 
these  scholars  that  there  is  no  doubt  that  the 
word  baptizo  signifies  to  dip,  and  that  this  was 
the  practice  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  disciples. 
May  I  not,  therefore,  lay  it  upon  the  hearts  of 
all  of  those  who  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
that  they  shall  follow  him  in  his  example, 
having  their  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil 
conscience  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  their 
bodies  washed  with  pure  water.  There  is  now 
appearing  in  England  an  exhaustive  life  of 
Mr.  Gladstone.  The  work  is  being  published 
in  numbers,  and  in  a  recent  number  of  that 
work  a  well-known  Canon  explains  why  Mr. 
Gladstone  was  so  popular  with  all  manner  of 
religious  people.  His  explanation  is  that  Mr. 
Gladstone  always  sought  out  points  of  agree- 
ment rather  than  points  of  disagreement.    His 


dream  was  a  reunited  Christianity.  No  one 
will  deuy  that  Mr.  Gladstone's  ideal  was  in 
the  right  direction.  Here  is  one  place  it  would 
seem  that  all  Christians  could  and  ought  to 
meet.  All  scholars  admit  that  immersion  was 
the  primitive  act  of  baptism.  Why,  then,  not 
follow  the  Lord  in  the  very  words  of  his  com- 
mand. Against  this  no  adequate  reason  can 
be  urged.  In  favor  of  it  is  every  considera- 
tion. Come,  then,  and  let  us  obey  the  com- 
mand, "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you:  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  al- 
way,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.    Amen." 


[thb  end.] 


INDEX. 


Absence  of  records,  xv. 

Acts  of  Parliament,  91,  155. 

Adams,  Mr.,  10,  32. 

Alexander,  Archbishop  Wm.,  Apx.  23. 

Allen,  Wm.,  133. 

Amsterdam  Confession,  107. 

Angus,  Dr.  Joseph,  v.,  5,  36. 

A.  R.,  114. 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  79,  81. 

of  York,  80. 
Armitage,  Dr.  Thomas,  21. 
Articles  of  Visitation,  xiv.,  77,  85. 

Bailie,  Robert,  x.,  13. 

Balfour,  Alexander,  85. 

Baptisteries,  xvi.,  Apx.  9,  22,  25. 

Barber,  Edward,  xvii.,  71,  112, 115, 119-128, 14Z 

Barclay,  Robert,  20,  40,  70. 

Barebone,  Praise  God,  22,  49,  50,  61, 136. 

Barnett,  Humphrey,  46. 

Barrow,  R.,  1.,  Iv.,  138. 

Barry,  Bishop,  Apx.  7. 

Batte  and  Batten,  18,  19,  70, 156. 

Bennett,  Prof.  W.  H.,  Apx.  2,  3. 

Bernard,  Humphrey,  46,  48. 

Bickersteth,  Bishop  Henry,  Apx.  17-19> 

Bingham,  Joseph,  Apx.  16. 

Bishop  of  Exeter,  81. 

of  Lincoln,  79,  81. 

of  London,  77,  78,  80,  81. 

of  Norwich  79,  81. 

of  Winchester,  81. 
Blacklock,  17,  18,  23,  67, 147. 
Blake,  Thomas,  84. 

217 


218 

Bliss,  Rev.  J.  F.,  91. 

Blunt,  Ricbard,  ii.,  18, 19,  21,  23,  63,  67,  68,  70,  72,  74,  97,  119, 

136,  145,  147. 
Bodliean  Library,  5, 18,  46, 112. 
Bow  and  Hackney  rivers,  139. 
Brewer,  a  Baptist,  97. 
Brewster,  Sir  David,  91. 
Briggs,  Prof.,  Apx.  2. 
British  Museum,  i.,  5,  41. 
Broadmead  Records,  116. 
Browne,  C.  J.,  Apx.  31. 
Browne,  Bishop  Harold,  Apx.  7,  8. 
Barrage,  Henry  S.,  21,  71. 
Busher,  Leonard,  106. 

Calamy,  23. 

Calvin,  John,  77,  95. 

Canne,  John,  116. 

Canterbury,  82. 

Carpenter,  Bishop  W.  Boyd,  Apx.  21. 

Carte,  Samuel,  83,  Apx.  13. 

Cathcart,  v.,  21. 

Chamberlain,  Dr.  Peter,  125. 

Chauncy,  141. 

Churches  organized  before  1641,  34,  35. 

Colle,  Thomas,  29. 

Collegiants,  70. 

Collier,  an  Anabaptist,  88. 

Confession  of  1643,  36,  72,  94, 148. 

Conant,  Dr.  T.  J.,  Apx.  22. 

Cooper,  Thompson,  122. 

Craddock,  Walter,  84. 

Cramer,  Dr.  L.,  158. 

Creighton,  Bishop  Mandell,  Apx.  13. 

Crosby,  Thomas,  iv.,  xii.,  7-9, 13, 17, 18,  20,  23,  55,  59,  61,  66, 

73, 120,  129,  146, 
Culross,  James,  27. 

Davidson,  Bishop,  R.  T.,  Apx.  21. 

Davies,  T.  Wilton,  165. 

Dean,  141. 

Dellis,  Dr.  J.  H.,  5. 

Denson,  Stephen,  87. 


219 


Dexter,  Dr.  H.  M.,  20,  22,  34,  55. 
Dutch  Anabaptists,  163. 

Eaton,  SAii.,  xviii.,  50-57, 152. 
Eden,  Bishop  G.  R.,  Apx.  21. 
Edinburgh  Encyclopaedia,  77,  99 
Edwards,  Thomas,  68. 
Ellicott,  Bishop  C.  J.,  Apx.  19. 
Elton,  Edward,  86. 
Episcopalians,  83,  Appendix. 
Ethelbert,  King,  baptized,  82 
Evans,  20. 
Evarts,  Dr.  W.  W.,  164. 

Farrae,  Dr.,  Apx.  12. 
Featley,  Daniel,  viii.,  84,  110. 
Felt,  142. 

Festing,  Bishop  J.  W.,  Apx.  22. 
Fox,  John,  xvii.,  102. 
Freemantle,  Hon.  W.  H.,  Apx.  3L 
Fuller,  Thomas,  97,  115. 

German  Anabaptists,  163. 
Gibson,  Dr.  G.  S.,  Apx.  23. 
Gladstone,  W.  E.,  Apx.  32. 
Goare,  Thos.,  148. 
Goodwin,  John,  133. 
Gore,  Rev.  Charles,  Apx.  28. 
Gough,  76. 

Gould,  George,  vi.,  8,  9,  55. 
Gould,  President,  5,  27. 
Grantham,  Thos.,  27. 
Greenwood,  Henry,  86. 
Gunne,  Thos.,  112, 148. 

Hagenbach,  Dr.,  166. 

Hall,  Thomas,  88. 

Heath,  Edward,  148. 

Hebrew  scholars,  Apx.  1. 

Helwys,  Thomas,  107. 

High  Court  of  Commission,  vi.,  40, 129. 

Hill  Cliff  Church,  xvi. 

Hobson,  Paul,  148. 

Holmes,  George  F.,  vi. 


220 

Hooke,  Joseph,  27. 
Hooke,  Walter  F.,  Apx.  14. 
House,  Sam.,  49. 
Hutchinson,  11, 14,  68. 

1.  E.,  31. 

I.  H.,  108. 

Immersion,  Appendix. 

Independent,  The,  12, 13,  70-73, 120, 122, 14& 

Ivimey,  57,  63. 

Jackson,  Bloomfled,  Apx.  32. 
Jacob,  Henry,  41-45,  48,  53. 
Jacob,  Sara,  43,  44. 
James  I.,  77. 

prayer-book  of,  78. 
Jebb,  Prof.  R.  C,  Apx.  6. 
Jessey,  Henry,  i.,  11,  32,  63,  74,  146. 
Jessop,  Edmond,  108. 
Jmirnal  and  Messenger,  157. 

Keller,  Dr.  Ludwig,  166. 

Kiffln  MS.,  history  of,  6-9. 

Kiffin,  Wm.,  7,  8,  17-19,  21,  24,  25,  58,  59,  64,  145,  146,  148,  15L 

Kilcop,  Thomas,  148. 

King,  Daniel,  25. 

Knollys,  Hanserd,  28,  37,  39, 147, 151. 

Kynaston,  Rev.  H.,  Apx.  5. 

Lamb,  Thos.,  112, 129  135. 

Lambeth  Record,  39. 

Lathrop,  John,  45,  52,  63,  56,  57,  61, 141. 

Laud,  Archbishop,  75. 

Leathes,  Rev.  S.,  Apx.  4. 

Legge,  Bishop  Augustus,  Apx.  14. 

Lewis,  John,  18,  19, 113, 15L 

Lexicons,  Greek,  85. 

Lightfoot,  John,  90. 

Mabbatt,  John,  148. 

Man,  John,  101. 

Marmdin,  Prof.  G.  E.,  Apx.  5. 

Marks,  Prof.  D.  W.,  Apx.  4. 

Marriott,  Wharton  B.,  Apx.  14. 


221 


Masson,  Prof.,  107. 
Mather,  Cotton,  151. 
Mayer,  Dr.  John,  86. 
Mede,  Dr.  Joseph,  86. 
Mercurius  Rusticus,  viii. 
Micseus,  85. 

Moore,  Prof.  W.  T.,  92. 
Morton,  John,  107, 108. 
Moule,  C.  G.,  Apx.  27. 
Mundy,  Thos.,  148. 

Neal,  17,  23,  36,  55,  66,  70,  71. 
Newman,  Dr.  A.  H.,  21,  22,  102,  158. 

Open  Communion,  9. 
Owen,  Bishop  John,  Apx.  25. 

Pagitt,  Epukaim,  xi. 

Paley,  F.  A.,  83,  Apx.  9. 

Patience,  25,  H8. 

Pearson,  25. 

Percival,  Bishop  John,  Apx.  22. 

Phelps,  Joseph,  148. 

Positive  Evidence,  xvi. 

Presbyterians,  76,  88,  154. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  5. 

Puritanism,  5. 

Rauschenbusch,  Prof.,  157. 

Reading,  98. 

Record  Office,  5. 

Reeve,  Rev.  I.  Andrewes,  Apx.  10, 11 

Regents  Park  College  5,  8. 

Rhynsburg,  71,  157. 

Richardson,  Sam.,  147,  148. 

Richart,  Josiah,  24. 

Rogers,  Daniel,  85,  86. 

Ryle,  Bishop  J.  C,  Apx.  24. 

Sanday,  Pkof.  Wm.,  Apx.  25. 
Sargeant,  Mr.,  49. 
Scapula,  85. 

Schaeflter,  Prof,  de  Hoop,  71. 
Schafl",  Dr.  Philip,  Ittu. 


222 

Seidell.  John,  88. 

Sheepshankes,  Bishop  John,  Apx.  14. 

Shephard,  Thomas,  149. 

Simmons,  Laurence  M.,  Apx.  4. 

Sinclair,  Dr.  Wm.,  Apx.  28. 

Sions,  Virgins,  142. 

Skeats,  Herbert  S.,  36. 

Skippard,  Thomas,  148. 

Some,  Dr.,  36. 

Somerset  House,  5. 

Spilsbury,  John,  20,  25,  33,  54,  69,  96,  140, 145, 147, 153. 

Spurgeon,  Rev.  Chas.  H.,  iii.,  10, 12. 

Steabing,  Prof.  John  F.,  Apx.  2. 

Stephens,  85. 

Stracham,  Prof.  John,  Apx.  5. 

Succession,  7. 

Taylor,  John,  xviil. 

Taylor,  Bishop,  88. 

Temple,  Bishop  Frederick,  Apx.  7-9. 

Thompson,  Dr.  E.  T.,  Apx.  25. 

Tipping,  George,  148. 

Turner,  Wm.,  99. 

Tyrrell,  Prof.  R.  Y.,  Apx.  6 

Ultat,  Rev.  W.  C,  5. 

Vedder,  Prof,  111. 

Wace,  Dr.  Henry,  Apx.  30. 
Walker,  Wm.,  So. 
Wall,  12,  75,  76,  83,  91. 
Warr,  Prof.  G.  C,  Apx.  5. 
Warner,  Bishop,  82. 
Webb,  John,  112, 148. 
Westcott,  Bishop  C.  J.,  Apx.  24. 
Westminster  Assembly,  89,  92, 155. 
Western  Recorder,  9. 
Whitlock,  Mark,  112, 123. 
Wilberforce,  Bishop  J.,  Apx.  15, 16. 
Wilkins,  Prof.  A.  S.,  Apx.  5. 
Williams,  Rogers,  145. 
Wilson,  23. 


226 


Winkler,  Dr.  E.  T.,  74. 
Wordsworth,  Bishop  J.,  Apx.  24. 
Wright,  Chas.  H.  H.,  Apx.  2. 
Wynell,  Mr.,  133. 

York  Minstek  Library,  5. 


